1. 1
Light, Liberty and the Pursuit of Education: The Unique Design of Maximlite Schools
By: Travis Ratermann and Benjamin Harvey
The schoolhouse has historically been a central building within our communities. As school districts
evolved from small one-room and multi-room schoolhouses, to ever-sprawling school campuses
encompassing large city blocks, the need for more schools began to take shape on the American
landscape. The trend of the ever-expanding school building began in the early 1950s, and few corners of
the country were unaffected. School districts were in pursuit of a sound educational curriculum, and
embraced their ever-expanding options to house the pupils under their care.1 While districts sought the
best options for their new schools, many architects were focused on creating a new school building.
They strove to innovate, and designed unique buildings that were aesthetically pleasing and practical.
One of these architects was T. Ewing Shelton, from Fayetteville Arkansas. His design for Maximlite
Schools, which focused on increasing natural light in classrooms, was both innovative and practical.
This led to construction of these unique schools around the country, where they continue to be used for
the education of the next generation.
75 million Americans were born between 1946 and 1964, the population explosion created the need for
new schools across. After years of low birthrates through the Great Depression and the outbreak of
World War II, school sizes remained small in rural areas and only moderately larger in urban areas of
the United States.2 “Despite the Depression, there was actually a fair amount of school building
accomplished in the 1930s due to the funding of the Public Works Administration, which provided
financing for 70 percent of new school construction for local communities.” With the rise in school
construction, the architecture of the depression era school rarely deviated from previous decades and
was greatly influenced by other stately public buildings in the community. Many new schools built in
the 1920s and 1930s resembled post offices and municipal buildings through the use of Greek, Roman,
or Colonial Revival styles of architecture. There was also a regional dialect to school building styles,
particularly in the Southwest United States, where the use of Spanish Colonial architecture was
prevalent. It is important to note that the choice of architectural styles was trying to show “the
institution’s importance to the viewers.”3 While the exterior of the building was considered important to
the public, architects and engineers in the early twentieth century focused on the design of the school
and how it related to the students. This idea of the school interacting with the student, and vice versa, is
evident in an article series from Architectural Forum entitled “School Reference Number,” in which
1 Weisser, A.S. , “Little Red School House, What Now: Two Centuries of American Public School Architecture,” Journal of
Planning History, 5.3 (August 2006); quoted in Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental
Standards,1900 to Today (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities, January 2012), 8.
2 Landon Jones, Great Expectations:America & the Baby Boom Generation (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan,
1980), 14.
3 Weisser, A.S. , “Little Red School House, What Now: Two Centuries of American Public School Architecture,” Journal of
Planning History, 5.3 (August 2006): 203.

2. 2
four architects presented designs that would “advance a new school architecture.”4 Architect Richard
Neutra, in his design for the Corona Elementary School in Bell, California, tried to deconstruct the
“traditional listening school” and create a facility that allowed for “learning through living.” In his plan,
large windows allowed for views to the outside and incorporated movable desks and large glass doors
that opened to an outdoor work space.5 These design principles were largely echoed by the three other
architects developing similar school projects throughout the United States within additional
Architectural Forum Journals in 1935.
One of the key areas that received attention while designing new schools in the 1950s revolved around
air quality and lighting. Ideas about these environmental factors affected the designs coming out of the
Modern School movement, and had not changed since the late 1800s. In “A History of School Design
and its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today,” Lindsey Baker writes that “good ventilation
was of fundamental importance to school designers at the turn of the century, and new systems for the
purpose of ventilating and heating schools and classrooms were rapidly emerging.”6 In short, indoor
duct-work was just in its early beginnings as a viable alternative to the use of single or double-hung
windows, especially in urban areas that were growing increasingly reliant on artificial ventilation. Yet,
there was no agreed-upon standard for the amount of fresh or circulated air that was optimal until the
1910s, when the state of Massachusetts declared it law that the “ventilating apparatus of all school
buildings shall supply at least 30 cubic feet of fresh air per minute… This has practically become the
standard the country over.”7 Even with the increasing use of artificial ventilation, the case was still
strongly made that artificial ventilation could never “take the place of fresh outdoor air and sunshine.”8
While ventilation systems were evolving into a common feature in schools, the use of natural and
artificial lighting became a widely debated topic in school construction. Through the late 1800s and
early 1900s, school buildings were largely planned and built on the necessity of natural light. Architects
and school designers emphasized that natural light should come from over the student’s left shoulder to
best aid visibility.9 Many of the earliest ideas on window treatments and arrangements seemed to swing
in and out of vogue in school design and construction, particularly in regard to dark corners and wall
spaces that received very little natural light. Yet, even in 1918, the standard lighting for school buildings
4 Ibid, 204.
5 Ibid.
6 Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards,1900 to Today (Washington D.C.:
National Institute of Building Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, January 2012), 6.
7 Mills, Wilbur Thoburn , American School Building Standards (Columbus, Ohio: Franklin Educational Publishing
Company, 1915), 98; quoted in Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards,1900
to Today (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
January 2012), 6.
8 Hamblin, A. D. F., Modern School Houses; being a series of authoritative articles on planning,sanitation,heating and
ventilation (New York: The Swetland Publishing Co., 1910), 9 ; quoted in Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and
its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences, National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, January 2012), 6.
9 This largely shows a national assumption that all students should write with their right hand. If light came over a student’s
right shoulder,the students forearmwould cast a shadowon the writing surface.

3. 3
called for 30 footcandles10 of artificial light which was provided by small incandescent lights.11 This
standard for lighting would greatly expand as fluorescent lighting became more widely used after the
1930s.
Similar to the need for housing in large urban areas in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a strong need for
educational buildings in expanding cities and the surrounding counties, as families increasingly moved
from cities to the suburbs. It must be said that there was no one reason for the mass exodus from the
city, but a long line of influences. Included in these reasons was a strong “demographic change, racial
restrictions and federal subsidies”12 that played a role in the flight of many urban residents across the
United States, especially in the south. This phenomenon did not only occur after WWII, it began in the
1920s and 1930s, stalled in the 1940s and picked up again between 1950 and the early 2000s. With the
decentralization of the population away from the city center, the surrounding areas saw a population
boom, particularly of young families.
As new families moved to the suburbs, the small schools which once dotted rural districts increasingly
became overwhelmed. It is important to note that it was not a problem isolated to just one metropolitan
area. With the influx of 3.8 million children born in 1947 alone, school systems throughout the United
States were forced to prepare their districts for the growing enrollments that were about to hit America’s
schools. Diverse plans were put out around the country in an attempt to solve the lack of sufficient space
at schools. One Arkansas architect, T. Ewing Shelton, strove to make his mark in the architecture of
education and went on to construct schools around the country and in Canada.
Thayer Ewing Shelton was born in Fayetteville, Arkansas in 1899 to farming parents and spent his early
years working the farm and managing his family’s acreage. Deeds and ads from the 1920s show that
Shelton spent some time selling woodlots to help his family make a living.13 Shelton went on to become
an engineer and worked in home construction in Oklahoma and Texas, though it is unknown if he
received a degree in engineering or architecture. What is known is that Shelton was active with the
Works Progress Administration, overseeing the construction and renovation of several Arkansas
courthouses during the depression, including the Baxter County Courthouse in Mountain Home,
Arkansas and the Franklin County Courthouse in Ozark, Arkansas. Following World War II, Shelton
moved back to Fayetteville and opened an office in the First National Bank building on Dickson Street.
He made several early attempts at school construction, including the St. Paul Arkansas School Building
10 A footcandle is a unit of illuminance on a surface that is everywhere one foot from a uniform point source of light of one
candle and equal to one lumen per square foot. ("Foot-candle." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed September 19, 2014.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foot-candle.)
11 Osterhaus,Werner, Office Lighting:a review of 80 years of standards and recommendations (Berkley,California:
Lawrence Berkley Laboratory Energy and Environmental Division, 1993),n.p.; quoted in Lindsay Baker, “A History of
School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards,1900 to Today (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Building
Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, January 2012), 7.
12 Jones, 22.
13 “Wood for Sale,” Fayetteville Daily Democrat, 12 November 1921, 2.

4. 4
in 1938, and the Berryville, Arkansas High School in 1946, both of which appear similar to his designs
for the Works Progress Administration.
T. Ewing Shelton was best and most widely known for his designs for Maximlite schools. The patent
date for his design is July 31, 1956.14 By this time there were Maximlite schools constructed and in use
in several states, the first of which was built in Eureka Springs in northwest Arkansas in 1954. Shelton
went on to build schools in more than twenty states, franchising out his designs to local architects who
worked under the name of Maximlite Schools. The states with the most Maximlite schools are found in
the Midwest; in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The farthest reaches of Maximlite design extended
to Esparto, California; Bowdoin, Maine; and Boyle, Alberta, Canada. While the reach of Maximlite
Schools was quite large, like many mid-century school design movements it was short-lived, with the
last Maximlite schools built in the early 1960s.
The design for Maximlite schools was and is very distinctive. From aerial photos, the hexagonal outline
of a Maximlite school is easily identified. The majority of the design was inspired by Shelton’s own
experiences as a student, as well as what he believed was the best educational environment for children.
The primary feature of the Maximlite School was an attempt to maximize natural lighting. This was
done in several key ways. First, the hexagonal wall design allowed greater surface area within each
classroom to capture exterior light and bring it inside. This created rather odd-shaped classrooms, but
provided large quantities of light. Second, Maximlite schools’ walls were usually one-half to two-thirds
covered with light-directing glass blocks. These blocks allowed additional light in, but directed it
upward, to reduce glare. R. C. Kendall of the American Structural Products Company of St. Louis
tested Shelton’s claims of superior lighting in 1952.15 They concluded, “This diversity (of light) is
better than that obtained in classrooms which have an ‘around the corner’ fenestration, where the two
fenestration walls meet at a right angle.”16 They also said “the brightness distribution throughout this
same room as shown on the schematic view is excellent.”17 In this respect, Shelton was very successful
in meeting and exceeding nationwide standards.
Shelton was so confident in the buildings he had created, he often sought to put them to the test. He
asked a local optometrist to review the lighting in his classrooms and provide his opinions about the
amount and quality of light offered by Maximlite designs. As G. Melton noted in his letter to Mr.
Shelton in 1955, “I am convinced without a doubt that there was no cross light and the lighting effect is
much more efficient than bi-lateral type of lighting, and is equal or superior to any other type.”18 Dr.
14 Shelton, T. Ewing. School Building. US Patent 2,756,584, filed August 2, 1952, and issued July 31, 1956.
15 R. C. Kendall, St. Louis, Missouri to I. K. Cozzens, St. Louis, Missouri, American Structural Products Company Intra-
Company Correspondence, Unknown Date, Shelton, T. Ewing Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program,
Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 G. Melton, Fayetteville, Arkansas to T. Ewing Shelton, Fayetteville, Arkansas, December 10, 1955, Shelton, T. Ewing
Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.

5. 5
Melton was not the only one to sing the praises of the Maximlite classroom’s effective lighting. Herbert
A. Hemmann, the superintendent of one of the Maximlite schools built in Indiana, wrote to the
Department of Health in Indianapolis in 1955 extolling the virtues of his school building. In particular
he pointed out the ability of Maximlite schools to be lit with almost no artificial lighting and the reduced
glare on chalkboards and desktops.19 Clearly, Maximlite schools could substantiate all of their proudest
claims for providing high quality lighting for students and teachers in the classroom. This focus on
lighting made Maximlite schools desirable for students, teachers, and school administrators.
The idea of maximizing light was not a new concept in the lighting of school buildings, but the
reasoning for Shelton’s emphasis on natural light was quite personal. The study of effects of natural
light on the classroom had been around since at least 1910 and was put best by A.D.F. Hamlin in his
book Modern School Houses: being a series of authoritative articles on planning, sanitation, heating
and ventilation, which stated…
“The total window area should equal from 40 to 50 percent of the total wall area of the
long side of the room, and in general, one-quarter the floor area of the classroom. The
windows should extend up to 6 inches of the ceiling; the windows stools should be from
3 to 3 ½ feet from the floor. Light from below that level is useless; it is the height of the
top of the window that determines its lighting efficiency. The sill should, however, not be
higher than 3 ½ feet from the floor…”20
The criteria for lighting brought up by Hamlin only helps exemplify the design ideas that were applied
to Maximlite school designs. In most cases, the hexagonal shape of the school allowed for at least two
exterior walls to be constructed using glass products like structural glass blocks and bands of awning
windows to allow in an abundance of natural light. The construction of the exterior wall of a Maximlite
school consisted of a 3 to 3 ½ foot concrete block wall, with a band of windows above followed by rows
of structural glass block which terminated approximately 6 inches from the roof as proposed by Hamlin.
As previously mentioned, this design principle had been circulating since at least 1910. Shelton’s
underlying reason for the unique design of the schools was that when Shelton was a young student, he
had trouble seeing the chalkboard and other writing surfaces.21
However even with the call for standardization of windows and window openings, the 1940s and 1950s
saw the rise of fluorescent lighting, which provided a more even lighting source than natural light. It is
19 Herbert A. Hemmann, to Bert Westover,Indianapolis, Indiana, November 28, 1955, T. Ewing Shelton Architect File,
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.
20 Hamblin, A. D. F., Modern School Houses; being a series of authoritative articles on planning,sanitation,heating and
ventilation (New York: The Swetland Publishing Co., 1910), 9 ; quoted in Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and
its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today (Washington D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences, National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, January 2012), 7.
21 Personal Interview with Suzie Shelton, T. Ewing Shelton Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program,
Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.

6. 6
interesting to note that sometime between 1918 and 1959, a new set of light level standards was
developed and implemented. The 1918 standards called for 30 footcandles of light, while the new
standards that were accepted in 1959 called for 70 footcandles.22
While lighting was the main benefit provided by Maximlite schools, there were several others promoted
by Shelton and his franchisees. One of the most important features was that the schools were
inexpensive to build. Costs ranged from approximately $5.46 to $8.79 per square foot, with a few
outliers. This was one of the least expensive school designs on the market in the 50s and 60s. It is noted
in the publication Butane-Propane News in December 1955 that “the national average cost for school
houses in the United States for 1952… was close to $14.50 per square foot.”23 While other groups like
National Homes were trying to achieve economies through the construction of modular schools, Mr.
Shelton and his schools focused on the importance of minimizing wasted space in order to reduce costs.
Another important characteristic was the use of the custom designed heating, cooling and ventilating
systems that Shelton designed himself and had copyrighted on March 2, 1956.24 The HVAC system that
Shelton designed was marketed as the “Maximlite Classroom Heating System,” and was manufactured
by the Stephens Manufacturing & Distributing Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma.25 Unlike some HVAC
systems at the time, the Maximlite Classroom Heating System was a wall system, which allowed for
various options to be added. Some of the options included the installation of “refrigerated air and door
for the shelving units,”26 which were connected to the overall HVAC unit and located below the two
exterior walls. The HVAC system was available in two colors of baked enamel paint: green and gray.
This system was able to supply “each classroom with fresh warm filtered air, discharged vertically
around the outside perimeter of the room, blanketing the window wall and eliminating down drafts.”27
Since this system was in every classroom, the comfort of the room could be controlled by the occupants,
making it easier to adjust the indoor temperature as the sun moved throughout the day.
Another important characteristic of the school was that it facilitated the safety of the school’s faculty and
students in emergencies. In particular, fire evacuations from classrooms could be accomplished very
22 National Research Council (U.S.). Building Illumination;The Effect of New Lighting Levels. A Research Correlation
Conference Conducted by the Building Research Institute,Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, May 20 -21,
1959,Cleveland, Ohio. Washington:National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1959; quoted in Lindsay
Baker, “A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards,1900 to Today (Washington D.C.: National
Institute of Building Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, January 2012), 14.
23 Carl Abell, “We Can Now Have a More Functional School For Less Money- And with Gas Heat!,” Butane-Propane News
(December 1955); reprint Butane-Propane News Exclusive, date unknown, 2 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
24 Stephens Manufacturing & Distributing Company, “Maximlite Classroom Heating System leaflet,” (Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Stephens Manufacturing & Distributing Comany, n.d.). Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Architect files, T.E. Shelton
folder, Maximlite Schools HVAC System folder.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Maximlite Inc. “Maximlite Classroom Heating And Ventilating System leaflet, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program,
Architect files, T.E. Shelton folder, Maximlite Schools HVAC System folder.

7. 7
quickly. In a letter from B.C. Harrison, who was the district superintendent in Haynes, Arkansas, to
Cammack and Scott of Lexington, Kentucky, he stated…
“In answer to your recent inquiry about exits in the Maximlite schools, I wish to
state that I have been a school superintendent and county superintendent in Arkansas
for the past twenty seven years and have taught in many different buildings and have
visited many schools in this and other states. Having constructed two buildings in
my own district recently of Maximlite design I think I can say with a certainty that
the Maximlite school has the best exit arrangement of any building being constructed
for school purposes. No classroom door is more than twelve feet from an exit and if
there were an unforeseeable carastrophy [sic]whereby the halls became blocked, the
windows are low enough and large enough to be used as exits. And there are enough
windows to take care of any pupil load in each room.”28
Shelton, in trying to market his schools as widely as possible, also tried to design a Maximlite
Bomb and Safety Shelter. This new design was presented on May 20, 1957 by Congressman
Ed Edmondson. The accompanying bill, “which would provide incentive payments to schools
incorporating bomb-proof areas in their building plans.”29 Additionally, the bill called for the
authorization of federal funds up to $50,000, provided the designs met the Federal Civil
Defense specifications for an atomic shelter. Due to the increased tension of nuclear warfare
during the Cold War, the demand for fallout shelters, especially in large public spaces, was
being heard around the United States. During Edmondson’s plea to congress to hear his bill he
described “schools as the most logical location for shelters to be constructed.”30 Because
Shelton also believed that schools would be a logical location for shelters, he spent two months
working on drawings to illustrate integrated bomb and tornado shelters in Maximlite schools.
To prepare these drawing he worked with “Congress, officials from the Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington research specialists, Federal Civil Defense Administration officials
and school representatives.”31 Shelton was even invited to a nuclear test facility in Nevada to
see firsthand how certain building materials withstood a nuclear blast. These building materials
were then analyzed, and the “results would prove beneficial in carrying out the planning and
designing of bomb shelters.”32 Shelton’s shelter plans were thoroughly examined by the
Atomic Energy Commission and were lauded as being “very practical and good, far-advanced
in design,” by Dean Harry L. Bowman of the Biology and Medical Division, and William
Maher of the Construction and Supply Division of the Atomic Energy Commission.
28 B.C. Harrison to Cammack & Scott, 27 July 1954, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Architect files, T.E. Shelton
folder, Maximlite Schools Bomb Shelter Maximlites folder.
29 Maximlite School News: Bomb and Tornado Safety Shelters leaflet, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Architect
files, T.E. Shelton folder, Maximlite Schools Bomb Shelter Maximlites folder.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.

8. 8
During the push by Congressman Edmondson, he showed a typical school design elevation
which was titled “Death Trap” due to the conventional school design’s use of “large expanses
of plate glass.”33 Though the main reasoning for the bill was the overlying Cold War/nuclear
atmosphere, Edmondson, who was from Oklahoma, also praised its ability to provide shelter
from tornadoes, cyclones, and hurricanes, and said that school administrators in his section of
the country were highly enthusiastic about the plan. Even with Congressional support and the
opportunity for incentive payments, no Maximlite Shelters appear to have been constructed as
part of the Federal Civil Defense Commission program, and there is evidence of only one
school/shelter (Abo Elementary School and Fallout Shelter) that was built using the incentive
program in Artesia, New Mexico. This school was built using a similar design to the one that
Shelton came up with just 5 years prior to the construction of Abo Elementary in 1962.34
A final design feature of Maximlite schools was their ability to be expanded. Shelton knew that schools
needed to anticipate further growth. Several of his school designs included proposed expansions
through the addition of extra “pods” onto the primary structure.35 These planned expansions encouraged
school districts to think more long term. Unfortunately, very few of the schools were expanded with
additional Maximlite classrooms, as school building styles continued to rapidly change in the 60s, and
Maximlite School projects waned. All of these features, on top of the large amounts of light allowed
into the classrooms made Maximlite schools a good value and a good design choice for growing school
districts. One example of the use of the Maximlite design to expand an existing school is in Berryville,
Arkansas, where the town’s high school was constructed by T. Ewing Shelton in 1946. His design
included a two-winged school with standard rectangular wings built of native stone with glass block
windows.36 At a later date, the school approached Shelton again to expand their school plant. By this
time Shelton was working solely on the construction of Maximlite schools, and so he designed a
Maximlite expansion to the Berryville School. Another example of planned school expansion is
demonstrated in Wynne, Arkansas, where a Maximlite school was constructed, and three additional
pods, each with six classrooms, were incorporated in Shelton’s designs.37 While these additional
classroom spaces were not constructed, the future expansion of the school plant was very much in the
front of T. Ewing Shelton’s mind.
33 Ibid.
34 Nancy Dunn and James Hewat, “Abo Elementary School and Fallout Shelter,” National Register of Historc Places
Nomination, New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, Abo Elementary School and Fallout Shelter National Register
of Historic Places Folder.
35 T. Ewing Shelton, “AnotherMaximlite School,” Flyer, T. Ewing Shelton Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program, Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.
36 T. Ewing Shelton Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
37 Ibid.

9. 9
Fayetteville was T. Ewing Shelton’s home town, and several examples of Maximlite schools are located
in the town and throughout Northwest Arkansas. These include Eureka Springs, built in 1951 and the
first Maximlite; Root Elementary, Asbell Elementary, St. Josephs’s and Woodland Hills in Fayetteville,
and the Green Forrest Elementary School. All of these schools share various Maximlite components.
Root Elementary was one of the best-documented Maximlite schools. Constructed in 1956, the school
was used extensively by T. Ewing Shelton in his promotional materials. The school, which was
originally designed as an elementary school, continues to be used in the same capacity today.
Unfortunately, several changes have altered the appearance of the school, and it is not a well-preserved
example of a Maximlite School. The changes that were made at the school are very typical of alterations
seen throughout the country to various Maximlite Schools. The most destructive change has been the
alteration of the school’s character-defining windows. The bands of awning windows surrounded by
light-directing glass blocks have been replaced with stationary and sliding metal-frame windows.
However, this school does not appear to have any additions and is very intact in overall form, and the
windows continue to provide several feet of lighting space between the low walls and the ceiling.
After the construction of Root Elementary, it became a show-piece for prospective school boards and
administrators from around the country. Interested boards flew into Arkansas to see the new design on
display at the school. A few of the visitors to the school were from Ashland Kentucky, and Minneapolis,
Minnesota.38 The Root Elementary School was documented extensively for Shelton’s promotional
materials, including lighting analysis, a cost breakdown, and extensive photography. In a lighting
analysis conducted by E. B. Jones, an engineer from Dallas, Texas, wrote that “I am very gratified to
report that your school exceeded every goal capable of being measured by instrumentation.”39The school
principals also provided letters of recommendation for the Maximlite design on several occasions to
nearby districts in Oklahoma and Kansas.40 Unlike some of the Maximlite schools, the Root elementary
school remains in operation. While some portions of the design were changed, it continues to be a house
of learning in the Fayetteville Community.
A good example of a school that is largely intact, while continuing to function in an academic capacity,
is the Green Forrest Elementary School. Constructed in 1951, the school remains in operation in its
original capacity. The Green Forrest Elementary School was the second Maximlite School constructed
by Shelton and has several key Maximlite features, including hexagonal classroom pods and use of
light-directing glass block throughout the building. In order to remain in operation, the school has been
expanded, and public spaces for the cafeteria and library have been moved into new portions of the
38 “Dedication of Root School Scheduled Thursday Night; Program to be Followed by Open House,” Northwest Arkansas
Times, January 11,1956, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
39 “Root ELementary School, Fayetteville, Arkansas,” Booklet, T. Ewing Shelton Architect File, Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program, Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.
40 Various Letters to T. Ewing Shelton, T. Ewing Shelton Architect File, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program,
Department of Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock, Arkansas.

10. 10
building. The overall form and design of the school remains largely intact, and continues to be used to
educate the next generation.
These two examples are similar to the schools found throughout Arkansas. The schools found around
Fayetteville were built because of the need for more space due to growing enrollment, while those in
central and eastern Arkansas were designed and constructed because of the low relative cost of
construction. Though the use of structural glass block is more expensive then flat pane glass, the entire
method of construction “is 20% to 40% less expensive to build than the conventional type of school.”41
Though construction costs for all schools are examined closely by local school boards, this was very
evident in the relatively economically depressed Arkansas delta region. Within the Arkansas delta, there
are eight Maximlite Schools, and all of them are located in small, rural, agricultural based towns, where
education was a high priority, but the communities were looking for the most economical approach to
education. With the Maximlite design, the school systems were able to accommodate all of these needs
by providing a great educational facility at a cost between $5.00 a square to $9.00 per square foot.42
Many of the Maximlite schools that have been identified continue to function in an educational capacity.
Only a few have been demolished, while several are currently vacant. Through expansion and interior
modernization, the schools continue to serve their local communities, and continue to meet the ever-
changing needs of education.
T. Ewing Shelton’s Maximlite Schools was one of several innovative programs in educational
construction in the 1950s and 1960s. Through their pursuit of efficient and effective lighting, and the
promotion of low-cost school design, they were able to help many school districts cope with their
swelling student enrollments and construction costs. The flight to city suburbs and the beginnings of
school consolidation prompted a large building program throughout the country and in places like
Fayetteville. The schools that were constructed in these towns were some of the earliest Maximlite
schools, and were showcase schools for Shelton and his franchised architects. While the Maximlite
building program came to a close in the early part of the 1960s, the unusual and unique buildings that
continue to dot the landscapes of our American towns are a legacy to the inspired design of their founder
and architect.
41 Frank G. Lopez, “More About Maximlite Schools,” Architectural Record (January 1957): 219.
42 Ibid.

11. 11
Table 1. Maximlite Schools Identified in the United States and Canada
Arkansas Barton Berryville Brickeys
Cotton Plant Dover (2) Earle Eureka Springs
Fayetteville (3) Green Forest Haynes Moro
West Helena Wrightsville Wynne
California Courtland Esparto
Connecticut Rockville
Illinois Chillicothe Troy
Indiana Carmel Charlottesville Indianapolis
Monticello San Pierre Shoals
Kansas Baxter Springs Caney Cheney
Erie Freeport Galva Grenola
Haysville Marienthal Offerle Salina
St. Paul
Kentucky Garrison Stanton
Maine Bowdoin Lisbon Falls Phippsburg
West Bath
Massachusetts Agawam Hancock Lee
Michigan Clinton Valley Fraser
Minnesota Maplewood St. Louis Park St. Paul
Missouri Arnold Avilla Branson
Carl Junction House Springs Jasper New London
Platte City Pleasant Hope Stockton Webb City
Wellsville Wheaton
Nevada Battle Mountain Carson City
New Jersey Annandale Lakewood Little Silver
Palmyra Sparta
Ohio Findlay New Haven North Star
Rush St. Clairsville
Oklahoma Broken Arrow Fairfax Shidler
Pennsylvania Croft Houston Hepburnville
Linden Matamoras Wilson
Texas Irving
Vermont Whittingham
Virginia Dawn
Wisconsin Antigo Strum
Canada Acadia Valley Bindloss Bowden
Boyle Condor Coronation Esther
Fort Langley Hays Leslieville Lethbridge
New Brigden Oyen Rocky Mountain
House
Seven Persons
Vauxhall