The Beaverton ActivityCenter Mission
Beaverton Votes to Build School in 1935
from the Gladwin County Record 10/16/1935
Only Four Votes Against Beaverton School Bond Issue. Vote Assures New School.
In an overwhelming vote of confidence in its school board and superintendent, electors of the Beaverton school district yesterday carried the proposed $36,000 bond issue for a new school building by a vote of 130 to 4.
Following the tabulation of votes last night school officials issued a statement thanking the Beaverton district electors for the expression of confidence indicated by the balloting. “While it is yet impossible to determine just when work on the new building will begin,” said Superintendent James MacConnell, “it may be within the next 60 days.” The $36,000 bond issue will represent Beaverton’s 55 per cent of the $65,000 called for in the plans for the new school building. The government PWA contribution totals $29,454.
Prior to the election, Board members pointed out that the new building is an absolute necessity and that the school district was actually making a saving of $30,000 if it accepted the government grant. At the present time classes are being held in five different buildings, four of them being temporary structures.
Plans for the new school building have been drawn by Warren S. Holmes, Lansing architect, who has worked in conjunction with the board in securing the PWA grant.
JAMES MACCONNELL, Superintendent of the Beaverton Rural Agricultural high school, begins his eighth year as head of that institution August 31, when school opens. Mr. MacConnell has been instrumental in making this one of the outstanding Smith-Hughes schools in the state. His Future Farmers’ organization has repeatedly carried away state honors. College officials in Smith-Hughes work say: “Jim is our No. 1 man.”
Gladwin County Record 8/12/1936
The Building’s Architect: James D. MacConnell
The Beaverton activity Center building was the first School Building that James D.MacConnell ever designed. http://www.cefpi.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4280 Dr. MacConnell is considered The Father of educational facility planning and was instrumental in nurturing this profession from its infancy to its significant stature in education today. Dr. MacConnell is best remembered as the director of Stanford University’s School Planning Laboratory, which he founded in 1951. The laboratory was the first center of applied and fundamental research on integrating school construction with child development, curriculum and instructional methods. The internationally renowned educator was CEFPI’s 1979 Planner of the Year and received the Distinguished Service Award in Educational Administration from the American Association of School Administrators in 1981.
Created in 1991 to honor the late Dr. MacConnell for his significant contributions to educational facility planning and the Council, CEFPI considers this to be its most prestigious award.
The James D. MacConnell Award recognizes a comprehensive planning process that results in educational facilities that serve the community, enhances the educational program, and meets multiples goals. Identified as one of the industry’s most prestigious awards, a “MacConnell project” exemplifies the Council’s belief that great schools begin with communication and planning. School facilities recognized in this award program, might embody great architecture but their successful components and characteristics were founded in an interactive process that engaged multiple stakeholders to create an educational environment that holds purpose and distinction within a community.
The James D. MacConnell Award will be presented to the architectural firm, school district, higher education institution, consultant, and/or construction management firm whose project best meets the following criteria:
A thorough, comprehensive planning process.
Development of comprehensive educational specifications and/or program of requirements.
A design that meets the requirements of the educational program with special emphasis on functionality of educational spaces.
Jury members will evaluate the project materials in the following areas:
INNOVATIVE PROCESS: The overall quality of the planning process
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: The degree of community involvement in the planning process
INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING: The quality of the educational specifications/program of requirements resulting from the influence of the planning process
INNOVATIVE PLANNING: The uniqueness of the educational facility solution
SUPPORT OF LEARNING: The quality of the design response in fulfilling the needs of the educational curriculum
BALANCE OF NEEDS: Evidence that they planning process achieved multiple goals of the district & community
FUNCTIONAL ADAPTABILITY: The flexibility and adaptability of the design response
CREATIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT: Creativity in the site development in responding to the space program and educational specifications
OVERALL IMPRESSION: The overall impression that the project as a whole is a product of a comprehensive planning process
The jury will review all applications that have been assessed as complete with all materials included in the submission. The jury will select no more than 5 projects as “finalists” to further review and evaluate. Once selected as a “finalist” submitting firms may be asked for additional photographs and images. Finalists will also be asked to participate in an electronic interview and to create a video presentation for CEFPI use. http://www.cefpi.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4280
Click on the links below to view the documents.
501(c)(3) Application Narrative Part 4
501(c)(3) IRS Approval Letter
Architectural Drawings 12.2012
BAC Bylaws Adopted 01.13.2013 Revised 08.21.2013
Business Committee Narrative 2011
Business Committee Report 2011
Cultural Committee Narrative 2011
Cultural Committee Report 2011
Education Committee Narrative 08.2011
Education Committee Report 2011
History Photos of School from Bruce Guy
Invitation to First Community Meeting 07.2011
Physical Fitness Health Committee Report Part 1 2011
Physical Fitness Health Committee Report Part 2 2011
Youth Committee Narrative
Youth Committee Report