Statistical Analysis Report

Public School Principals

Report on Their School

Facilities: Fall 2005

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-007
Bradford Chaney

Laurie Lewis 

Westat 

Bernard Greene 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 

Public School Principals 

Report on Their School 

Facilities: Fall 2005 

Statistical Analysis Report

January 2007

U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2007-007 
U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics 

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in 

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance 

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and 

review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high 

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating 

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product 

or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

January 2007 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation 

Chaney, B., and Lewis, L. (2007). Public School Principals Report on Their School Facilities: Fall 2005 

(NCES 2007–007). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

For ordering information on this report, write to 

U.S Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. 

Content Contact 

Bernard Greene 

(202) 502-7348 

Bernard.Greene@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

The extent to which school buildings support education has been an important topic for 

policymakers. One issue is the physical condition of the buildings, particularly as school buildings age. 

Another is the ability of the buildings to accommodate shifts in the nation’s population: some 

communities have experienced decreases in school-age population due to outmigration or shifts in the age 

distribution, leading to below-capacity enrollment in their schools, while others have experienced large 

increases in population and have needed to build new schools, expand existing ones, or put more students 

in buildings than the buildings are designed to serve. This report is based on a survey of school principals 

conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. It presents current information on the extent of the match between the 

enrollment and the capacity of the school buildings, environmental factors that can affect the use of 

classrooms and school buildings, the extent and ways in which schools use portable buildings and the 

reasons for using them, the availability of dedicated rooms for particular subject areas (such as science 

labs or music rooms), and the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms. The data were collected 

from mid-September 2005 through late January 2006 from public elementary and secondary schools in 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia. T-tests were used to test for statistical significance. 

The Capacity of School Buildings 

Principals often reported a mismatch between the capacity of school buildings and the 

number of students in those buildings. More than half of the principals reported that their school had 

fewer students than the school’s design capacity: 21 percent said their school was underenrolled by more 

than 25 percent, and 38 percent said their school was underenrolled by between 6 and 25 percent (figure 

1; table 1). The remaining schools included those that had enrollments within 5 percent of their capacity 

(22 percent) and those that were overenrolled (10 percent were overenrolled by between 6 to 25 percent 

above their capacity, and 8 percent by more than 25 percent of their design capacity). The percentage of 

schools that were underenrolled by 6 to 25 percent increased from 33 percent in 1999 to 38 percent in 

2005, and the percentage that were overenrolled by 6 to 25 percent decreased from 14 percent to 10 

percent. 

• Those schools that principals described as overcrowded used a variety of approaches to 

deal with the overcrowding: using portable classrooms (78 percent), converting nonclassroom space into classrooms (53 percent), increasing class sizes (44 percent), 
iv 

building new permanent buildings or additions to existing buildings (35 percent), using 

off-site instructional facilities (5 percent), or other approaches (12 percent) (table 2). 

• While one of the primary ways of dealing with overcrowding was to use portable 

(temporary) buildings, portable buildings were also used by schools that were not 

overenrolled. From a list of nine possible reasons for using portable buildings, three 

were given by one-third or more of the principals: an increase in enrollment (69 

percent), initiatives to reduce class size (34 percent), and a need to add or expand an 

academic support program (33 percent) (table 4). 

• Schools used portable buildings in a variety of ways: for general classrooms (73 percent 

of schools with portables), academic support areas (58 percent), storage (27 percent), 

music rooms (26 percent), before- and after-school care for school-age children (13 

percent), early childhood programs (11 percent), art rooms (10 percent), computer labs 

(9 percent), language labs (9 percent), office/administrative space (9 percent), library 

media centers (6 percent), teacher work rooms (6 percent), day care centers for 

preschool-age children (4 percent), and other uses (14 percent) (table 5). 

• Of those principals that considered their schools to be overcrowded, 40 percent 

anticipated that the overcrowding would be substantially reduced or eliminated within 

the next 3 years (table 6). The reasons that they gave included the completion of new 

permanent buildings or additions to existing buildings (68 percent), the completion of 

new schools nearby (43 percent), school boundary changes with existing schools (37 

percent), and projected declines in the local school-age population (17 percent). 

Availability of Dedicated Space in Selected Areas 

Schools often had dedicated rooms or facilities to support particular subject areas: 83 

percent had a gymnasium to support physical education, 81 percent had one or more music rooms, 70 

percent had one or more art rooms, and 48 percent had one or more science labs (table 7). 

Environmental Factors and School Buildings 

The survey asked principals about the quality of the space in their buildings. Nine specific 

environmental factors were examined: artificial lighting, indoor air quality, size or configuration of 

rooms, acoustics or noise control, physical condition, ventilation, heating, natural lighting, and air 

conditioning. 

• Overall, for eight of the nine environmental factors, 80 percent or more said that each 

factor was either satisfactory or very satisfactory in their permanent buildings (figure 3; 

table 9). The only exception was air conditioning: 17 percent of the schools did not have 

air conditioning in their permanent buildings, and thus did not rate it as either 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Satisfaction with the nine environmental factors in 

portable buildings ranged from 72 percent to 91 percent (figure 4; table 12). 
v 

• Giving separate responses for permanent and portable buildings, 56 and 55 percent of 

principals said that these environmental factors taken together did not interfere at all 

with the delivery of instruction, while the remainder reported at least some interference: 

33 and 30 percent reported there was interference to a minor extent, 9 and 13 percent to 

a moderate extent, and 1 and 2 percent to a major extent (table 17). 

• Forty-two percent of the principals were very satisfied and 50 percent were satisfied 

with the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms at the school (table 18). 
vi 

This page intentionally left blank. 
vii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the development of the survey 

and this report. The survey was requested and financially supported by the National Center for Education 

Statistics. Bernard Greene was the NCES Project Officer. Westat’s Project Director and Survey Manager 

was Laurie Lewis. Debbie Alexander directed the data collection efforts, assisted by Ratna Basavaraju 

and Anjali Pandit. Nazik Elgaddal and Robert Delfierro were the programmers, Carol Litman was the 

editor, and Sylvie Warren was responsible for formatting the report. 

The NCES staff who reviewed the report include Bruce Taylor, Jack Buckley, Val Plisko, and John 

Wirt. The reviewers outside of NCES were Ian Soper and Thomas Corwin of the Budget Service in the 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education. This report was 

also reviewed by Zeyu Xu, Xiaolei Wang, Alexandra Henning, Akemi Kinukawa, and Matt Adams of the 

Education Statistics Services Institute, American Institutes for Research. In addition, the report was 

reviewed by Duc-Le To of the Institution of Education Sciences and two anonymous reviewers. 

We would also like to acknowledge the respondents, without whom this survey would not have 

been possible. 
viii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
ix 

Contents 

 Page 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii 

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables............................................................................................................................ x 

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xiv

Summary................................................................................................................................... 1 

Background................................................................................................................... 1

Selected Findings.......................................................................................................... 4 

The Capacity of School Buildings ................................................................. 4 

Extent of Match Between Enrollment and Building Capacity............ 4 

Availability of Dedicated Space in Selected Areas........................................ 10 

Environmental Factors and School Buildings................................................ 11 

Satisfaction With Environmental Factors ........................................... 11 

Impact on Instruction.......................................................................... 14 

Cleanliness and Maintenance of Student Restrooms .......................... 17 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 

References................................................................................................................................. 19 

Tables of Estimates and Standard Errors ............................................................................. 21 

Appendix A: Technical Notes................................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B: Questionnaire.................................................................................................... B-1 
x 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are underenrolled, at 

capacity, or overenrolled, by school characteristics: Fall 2005.................................... 22 

1-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools reporting that 

they are underenrolled, at capacity, or overenrolled, by school characteristics: Fall 

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 23 

2 Percent of public schools where the principal considers the school overcrowded, 

and the percent of those using various approaches to deal with the overcrowding, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................................. 24 

2-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools where the principal considers the 

school overcrowded, and the standard errors for the percent of those using various 

approaches to deal with the overcrowding, by school characteristics: Fall 2005........ 25 

3 Number and percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings, 

portable (temporary) buildings, and classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................................. 26 

3-A Standard errors for the number and percent of public schools with classrooms in 

permanent buildings, portable (temporary) buildings, and classrooms in portable 

(temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005........................................ 27 

4 Percent of public schools indicating various reasons for using portable 

(temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005........................................ 28 

4-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating various reasons for 

using portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 ................ 30 

5 Percent of public schools using portable (temporary) buildings in various ways, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................................. 32 

5-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools using portable (temporary) 

buildings in various ways, by school characteristics: Fall 2005.................................. 34 

6 Percent of overcrowded public schools that anticipate that the overcrowding will 

be substantially reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years, and the percent of those 

giving various reasons that the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or 

eliminated, by school characteristics: Fall 2005.......................................................... 36 

6-A Standard errors for the percent of overcrowded public schools that anticipate that 

the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years, 

and the standard errors for the percent of those giving various reasons that the 

overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 ............................................................................................. 37 
xi 

7 Percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for science, art, music, 

and physical education, and the percentage distribution indicating the extent to 

which that dedicated room or facility supports the ability of the school to deliver 

instruction in that subject: Fall 2005 ........................................................................... 38 

7-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility 

for science, art, music, and physical education, and the standard errors for the 

percentage distribution indicating the extent to which that dedicated room or 

facility supports the ability of the school to deliver instruction in that subject: Fall 

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 39

8 Percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for science, art, music, 

and physical education, and the percent of those indicating that the room or 

facility supports the ability of the school to deliver instruction in that subject to a 

moderate or major extent, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 .................................. 40 

8-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility 

for science, art, music, and physical education, and the standard errors for the 

percent of those indicating that the room or facility supports the ability of the 

school to deliver instruction in that subject to a moderate or major extent, by 

school characteristics: Fall 2005.................................................................................. 41 

9 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms located in 

permanent buildings: Fall 2005 .................................................................................... 42 

9-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms 

located in permanent buildings: Fall 2005.................................................................... 43 

10 Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors are very 

satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in permanent buildings, by 

school characteristics: Fall 2005.................................................................................. 44 

10-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors are very satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in 

permanent buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 .......................................... 45 

11 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms located in portable 

(temporary) buildings: Fall 2005................................................................................. 46 

11-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms 

located in portable (temporary) buildings: Fall 2005 .................................................. 47 

12 Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors are very 

satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in portable (temporary) 

buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................ 48 
xii 

12-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors are very satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in 

portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005.......................... 49 

13 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent to which various 

environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to deliver instruction 

in classrooms located in permanent buildings: Fall 2005............................................. 50 

13-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the 

extent to which various environmental factors interfere with the ability of the 

school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent buildings: Fall 

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 51 

14 Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfere to 

a moderate or major extent with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in permanent buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005....... 52 

14-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors interfere to a moderate or major extent with the ability of 

the school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent buildings, by 

school characteristics: Fall 2005.................................................................................. 53 

15 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent to which various 

environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to deliver instruction 

in classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings: Fall 2005............................. 54 

15-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the 

extent to which various environmental factors interfere with the ability of the 

school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in portable (temporary) 

buildings: Fall 2005...................................................................................................... 55 

16 Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfere to 

a moderate or major extent with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: 

Fall 2005....................................................................................................................... 56 

16-A Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors interfere to a moderate or major extent with the ability of 

the school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in portable (temporary) 

buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................ 57 

17 Percentage distributions of public schools indicating the extent to which the 

environmental factors, taken together, interfere with the ability of the school to 

deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent and in portable (temporary) 

buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005............................................................ 58 

17-A Standard errors for the percentage distributions of public schools indicating the 

extent to which the environmental factors, taken together, interfere with the ability 

of the school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent and in 

portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005.......................... 59 
xiii 

18 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms are at the 

school, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 ................................................................ 60 

18-A Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory the cleanliness and maintenance of student 

restrooms are at the school, by school characteristics: Fall 2005................................ 61 

19 Estimates and standard errors for data in figures and data not shown in tables: Fall 

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 62 

A-1 Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample, and 

estimated number and percent of public schools the sample represents, by school 

characteristics: 2005 ..................................................................................................... A-5 

A-2 Number of schools with imputed data in the study sample, and number of schools 

with imputed data the sample represents, by questionnaire item: 2005 ....................... A-6 
xiv 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1 Percentage of public schools reporting that they were underenrolled, at capacity, 

or overenrolled in 1999 and 2005, and percentage of students at such schools in 

2005 .............................................................................................................................. 7 

2 Percentage of public schools with and without portables, by overenrollment 

status: Fall 2005........................................................................................................... 8

3 Satisfaction with environmental factors in permanent buildings: Fall 2005 ............... 13 

4 Percent of public schools indicating that various factors were satisfactory or very 

satisfactory, by type of building: Fall 2005 ................................................................. 14 

5 Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfered 

with their ability to deliver instruction, by type of building: Fall 2005....................... 15 

6 Percent of public schools indicating various numbers of environmental factors 

interfered with the ability of the school to deliver instruction to a moderate or 

major extent, by type of building: Fall 2005 ............................................................... 16 
1 

Summary 

Background 

The extent to which school buildings support education has been an important topic for 

policymakers. One issue is the physical condition of the buildings, particularly as school buildings age: a 

1995 U.S. General Accounting Office report estimated the cost of bringing existing schools into good 

condition at $112 billion. The report noted that about one-third of schools, with 14 million students, 

reported the need for extensive repair or replacement of one or more buildings, and that almost 60 percent 

of schools reported at least one major building feature was in disrepair. In addition, schools faced federal 

mandates to make schools accessible to all students and to remove or correct hazardous substances such 

as asbestos, lead paint, and radon, costing $11 billion of the $112 billion total. A later follow-up report 

indicated that the need for repairs, though widespread, was distributed unequally throughout the nation: 

the greatest needs were in central cities, the West, large schools, secondary schools, schools where more 

than half of the students belong to racial/ethnic minorities, and schools where 70 percent or more of the 

students were poor (U.S. General Accounting Office 1996). Later reports also documented a continuing 

and possibly growing need. A 2000 report by the National Education Association estimated the cost of 

repairs/renovation at $322 billion. One fundamental reason for the need for repairs was the safety of the 

students and teachers, but the quality of the school buildings affects other factors as well. It forms part of 

the context for learning, so that factors such as lighting, noise reduction, and air quality can influence 

student behavior and academic achievement (Lackney 1999; Schneider 2002). It also is related to teacher 

satisfaction: 48 percent of teachers who transferred to another school and 39 percent of teachers who left 

teaching cited the need for significant repair of school facilities as a source of dissatisfaction (U.S. 

Department of Education 2005; see also Buckley, Schneider, and Shang 2005). 

Another issue is whether schools have sufficient capacity to fulfill their purposes. One 

difficulty is that the buildings may become less suitable when there are shifts in the nation’s population: 

some communities have experienced decreases in the school-age population due to outmigration or shifts 

in the age distribution, leading to below-capacity enrollment in their schools, while others have 

experienced large increases in population and have needed either to build new schools, expand existing 

ones, or put more students in buildings than the buildings are designed to serve. A 1999 Fast Response 

Survey System (FRSS) survey asked school district personnel to provide the number of students a school 

was designed to serve (here labeled the design capacity) and the enrollment size for that school; it found 

that 52 percent of schools had enrollments that were below the design capacity by more than 5 percent, 
2 

and 22 percent had enrollments that exceeded the design capacity by the same amount (Lewis et al. 2000). 

A related difficulty is that in addition to handling increases or decreases in the number of students, 

schools also must accommodate changes in school policy that may make the configuration of the schools 

no longer optimal. For example, if schools or school districts adopt a new policy that restricts class sizes, 

then school buildings that were built for larger class sizes may not have a sufficient number of classrooms 

to accommodate the new classroom arrangement. As solutions, the school buildings might be 

permanently enlarged and/or reconfigured, portable (temporary) buildings may be added, and/or school 

boundaries may be changed to lower the number of students attending the school. Similarly, schools may 

face the need to establish other kinds of space than classroom space, which has often been the standard 

basis for measuring school capacity. For example, a school may have sufficient classroom space and still 

have need for more space for functions such as computer laboratories, counseling, and school 

administration. In all of these cases, despite the need to add classrooms or other space, or reduce the 

number of students, a school’s enrollment may be consistent with its design capacity. 

In order to provide an up-to-date picture of the status of U.S. public school facilities, the 

National Center for Education Statistics used its Fast Response Survey System to conduct a national 

survey of school principals on their school facilities in fall 2005. The survey provides data on principals’ 

satisfaction with various environmental factors in classrooms located in permanent and portable 

buildings, the extent and ways in which the school uses portable buildings and the reasons for using them, 

the availability of dedicated rooms for particular subject areas (such as science labs or music rooms), the 

cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms, and the extent of the match between the enrollment and 

the capacity of the school buildings. 

The survey was mailed to school principals, who were asked to complete it themselves. 

Questionnaires were mailed to a representative sample of 1,205 public schools in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. The sample was selected from the 2002–03 Common Core of Data (CCD) Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe File, the most current available at the time of selection. The 

sampling frame includes approximately 84,500 elementary/secondary schools. Data have been weighted 

to yield national estimates of public elementary/secondary schools. The unweighted response rate was 90 

percent, and the weighted response rate was 91 percent. Detailed information about the survey 

methodology is provided in appendix A, and the questionnaire can be found in appendix B. 

The primary focus of this report is to present national estimates on school facilities in 2005, 

along with selected survey findings based on the following school characteristics: 
3 

• Instructional level (elementary schools, secondary/combined schools); 

• School size (enrollment of less than 350, 350 to 699, 700 or more); 

• Locale (city, urban fringe/large town, small town/rural); 

• Region (Northeast, Southeast, Central, West); 

• Percent minority enrollment (less than 6 percent, 6 to 20 percent, 21 to 49 percent, and 

50 percent or more); and 

• Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (less than 35 percent, 35 to 49 

percent, 50 to 74 percent, 75 percent or more), which is used as a proxy measure of 

poverty concentration at the school. 

All of these variables have been reduced to a small number of categories, both to simplify the 

presentation of the data and to protect schools’ confidentiality. The ranges that were used to define each 

category for school size, minority enrollment, and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches were based 

on previous FRSS reports to aid comparability across surveys, and were designed to provide roughly 

equal numbers of schools (unweighted) in each category in order to facilitate comparisons through tests of 

statistical significance; also, the measure of poverty concentration is based on Title I eligibility standards 

for schools. To simplify the discussion of the findings, throughout this report school enrollment size will 

be referred to as small, medium, or large schools. The percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch will be referred to as poverty concentration. 

In general, comparisons by these school characteristics are presented only where significant 

differences were detected and follow meaningful patterns. It is important to note that many of the school 

characteristics may also be related to each other. For example, enrollment size and instructional level of 

schools are related, with secondary schools typically being larger than elementary schools. Similarly, 

poverty concentration and minority enrollment are related, with schools with a higher minority enrollment 

also more likely to have a higher concentration of poverty. This report is purely descriptive in nature, and 

readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based solely on the bivariate results presented in this 

report. Complex interactions and relationships have not been explored here. Consistent with other NCES 

and FRSS reports, the purpose of this report is to provide descriptive data that may be relevant to 

policymakers, but not to evaluate schools or programs. The variables examined also demonstrate the 

range of information that now is available from the study. The selected findings are examples of 

comparisons that can be made using the data and are not designed to emphasize any particular issue. 

Release of this report is intended to encourage more in-depth analysis of the data, using more 

sophisticated statistical methods. 
4 

All specific statements of comparison made in this report have been tested for statistical 

significance through t-tests and are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or better. However, only 

selected findings are presented for each topic in the report. Throughout this report, differences that may 

appear large (particularly those by school characteristics or those for subgroups of schools, such as those 

with overcrowding) may not be statistically significant. This is due in part to the relatively large standard 

errors surrounding the estimates. A detailed description of the statistical tests supporting the survey 

findings can be found in appendix A. 

Selected Findings 

The findings are organized to address the following issues: the adequacy of the capacity of 

school buildings, the availability of dedicated rooms in selected areas, and environmental factors and 

school buildings. 

The Capacity of School Buildings 

In this section, we discuss the extent of the match between the enrollment and the capacity of 

the school buildings, approaches to overcrowding, the use of portable buildings (to handle overcrowding 

or for other reasons), and anticipated reductions in overcrowding. 

Extent of Match Between the Enrollment and Building Capacity

When the number of students enrolled is larger than the number of students the school is 

designed to accommodate, it may contribute to increased wear and tear on schools and may affect the 

classroom environment. If it is smaller, schools may be investing more in buildings and maintenance 

than is necessary. 

This survey used two measures of the match between the enrollment and the capacity of the 

school buildings, with one measure based on numeric comparisons and the other based on the principals’ 

perceptions. To construct the first measure, principals were asked how many students their school was 

designed to serve, not counting portable buildings or other temporary instructional space, and how many 

students were enrolled at the school. This report treats differences of more than 5 percent of the school 
5 

capacity as indicators of overenrollment or underenrollment. The second measure was based on asking 

principals at schools where the enrollment was greater than the stated capacity whether they considered 

the school to be overcrowded. Principals did not have the opportunity to say the school was overcrowded 

unless the enrollment exceeded the number of students the school was designed to serve; however, they 

could differ from the first measure by indicating that the school was overcrowded even if the numeric 

difference was small, or by indicating the school was not overcrowded even when the numeric difference 

exceeded 5 percent of the school capacity. This report uses the term “overcrowding” only for the second 

measure based on principals’ opinions, and “overenrollment” if the measure is based solely on numeric 

comparisons. 

The measurement of space needs in schools itself raises some difficult issues. The most 

traditional measure is that used by the 1999 FRSS survey, which asked for the design capacity of the 

schools; historically this has been calculated by counting the number of classrooms and multiplying by an 

average class size (DeJong and Craig 2000). In the 1999 FRSS survey, these data were collected from 

school district officials who were very familiar with the school buildings in the district. Such data are 

used by districts both for planning concerning school buildings and for determining enrollment 

boundaries, and school district officials did not express any difficulties in obtaining the data. The current 

2005 survey used the same definition, but the survey was sent to school principals since they might be 

more familiar with problems experienced at the schools, and the survey was designed to focus on 

principals’ perceptions. School principals also have data on design capacity in their school records and 

generally appeared to check their records before providing their responses (based on the pretest and 

telephone calls for data retrieval and verification), though some principals gave an estimate. Still, this 

number may only provide a starting point for calculations; for example, the Chicago Public Schools state 

that elementary school capacity should be rated at 80 percent of the design capacity in order to allow for 

ancillary classrooms such as art, music, computer, and science rooms or labs (Chicago Public Schools 

2005). (For enrollment and transfer purposes, the Chicago Public Schools also count mobile units and 

leased facilities, while the measure used in both the past FRSS report and in this report excludes portable 

buildings.) The current FRSS survey was designed to also collect principals’ perceptions on 

overcrowding as a way of providing an alternative approach for examining schools’ needs. The survey 

intentionally did not allow principals to say their schools were overcrowded if the enrollment was lower 

than the design capacity; though such schools might still have real space needs depending on how they 

were configured (e.g., they may not have enough classrooms if the class size has been lowered by district 

policy), such needs were considered to represent a different kind of issue than overcrowding. Still 

another approach is to base calculations of space needs on the total square footage per student: California 

defines school facilities as critically overcrowded if the number of students per acre is double the state 

standard (i.e., is above 115 pupils per acre for grades K–6, and 90 pupils per acre for grades 7–12) 
6 

(Colmenar et al. 2005). For this 2005 survey, design capacity was chosen because it is a commonly used 

metric for examining school needs, and because it allows measures of change over time (by comparing 

the current estimates with those of the earlier FRSS study in 1999). FRSS studies are designed to be short 

and to impose relatively little burden on the survey respondents, and it therefore was not feasible to 

develop a complete picture of school space issues. 

There was often a mismatch between the capacity of school buildings and the number of 

students in those buildings. More than half of the principals reported that their school had fewer students 

than the school’s design capacity: 21 percent said their school was underenrolled by more than 25 

percent, and 38 percent said their school was underenrolled by between 6 to 25 percent (figure 1; table 1). 

The remaining schools included those that had enrollments within 5 percent of their capacity (22 percent), 

and those that were overenrolled (10 percent were overenrolled by between 6 to 25 percent above their 

capacity, and 8 percent by more than 25 percent of their design capacity). For both categories of 

overenrollment, the percentage of students in those schools was greater than the percentage of schools (15 

percent versus 10 percent, and 15 percent versus 8 percent); also, the percentage of students in schools 

that were underenrolled by more than 25 percent was lower than the percentage of schools (12 percent 

versus 21 percent). By comparing these results with a similar study conducted in 1999, one can also 

measure change in the capacity of school buildings relative to their enrollments. The percentage of 

schools that were underenrolled by 6 to 25 percent increased from 33 percent to 38 percent, and the 

percentage that were overenrolled by 6 to 25 percent decreased from 14 percent to 10 percent. 

The percentage of principals who said that they considered their school to be overcrowded 

(15 percent; table 2) was not significantly different from the percentage who indicated that their school 

was more than 5 percent over their design capacity (10 percent at 6 to 25 percent over capacity, plus 8 

percent at more than 25 percent over capacity). Despite these similarities, principals’ perceptions did 

sometimes disagree with the statistics that are based purely on design capacity: 52 percent of those 

principals whose enrollment exceeded the design capacity by 5 percent or less considered their schools to 

be overcrowded, and 26 percent of those whose enrollment exceeded the design capacity by more than 5 

percent did not consider their schools to be overcrowded (not shown in tables). 
7 

Figure 1. Percentage of public schools reporting that they were underenrolled, at capacity, or 

overenrolled in 1999 and 2005, and percentage of students at such schools in 2005 

19

21

12

33

38

34

26

22

24

14

10

15

8

8

15

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Schools in 1999

Schools in 2005

Students in 2005

Percent

Underenrolled by more than 25%

Underenrolled by 6–25%

Enrollment within 5% of capacity

Overenrolled by 6–25%

Overenrolled by more than 25%

School status

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005.

Underenrollment by more than 25 percent was more common at small schools (41 percent) 

than at medium or large schools (14 percent and 6 percent, respectively), in the Central region (27 percent 

versus 16 and 19 percent in the Southeast and West), and at small town or rural schools than at schools in 

other locales (31 percent versus 12 and 16 percent) (table 1). By contrast, overenrollment by more than 

25 percent was more common in large schools (19 percent) than in small and medium schools (2 percent 

and 6 percent, respectively), in the Southeast and West (11 percent and 15 percent versus 2 percent in the 

Central and Northeast regions), in city schools than in small towns and rural areas (14 percent versus 4 

percent), and in schools with 50 percent or more minority enrollment (16 percent versus 0 to 8 percent). 
8 

 Approaches to Overcrowding 

Those 15 percent of schools that principals described as overcrowded used a variety of 

approaches to deal with the overcrowding: using portable classrooms (78 percent), converting nonclassroom space into classrooms (53 percent), increasing class sizes (44 percent), building new permanent 

buildings or additions to existing buildings (35 percent), using off-site instructional facilities (5 percent), 

or other approaches (12 percent) (table 2). Schools often used a variety of these approaches in 

combination: 79 percent used two or more of these approaches, and 36 percent used three or more (not 

shown in tables). 

 Use of Portable Buildings 

As noted, one of the primary approaches to overcrowding is to use portable (temporary) 

buildings. However, the usage of portable buildings is much greater than might be anticipated based on 

tables 1 and 2 alone: 37 percent of all public schools had portable buildings (table 3), compared with 18 

percent that were overenrolled. In fact, the percentage of schools with portables that were at or below 

capacity was not significantly different from the percentage with portables that were overenrolled (19 

percent versus 18 percent; figure 2), while 4 percent of schools were overenrolled but not using portables. 

This finding indicates that overenrollment is not the only reason for using portables. 

Figure 2. Percentage of public schools with and without portables, by overenrollment status: Fall 

2005 

No portables and 

not overenrolled

(59%)

No portables and 

overenrolled

(4%)

Have portables and 

not overenrolled

(19%)

Have portables and 

overenrolled

(18%)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005.
9 

The schools with the greatest use of portable buildings were as follows: 

• Large schools (52 percent had portables, compared with 27 and 36 percent of other 

schools); 

• City schools (49 percent versus 28 and 39 percent in the other two locales); 

• Schools in the West or Southeast (62 percent and 41 percent, respectively, compared 

with 17 and 20 percent in the other two regions); and 

• Schools with high minority enrollment (53 percent among schools where 50 percent or 

more were minorities, compared with 19 to 42 percent in other schools) (table 3). 

Reasons for use. From a list of nine possible reasons for using portable buildings, three 

were given by one-third or more of the principals: an increase in enrollment (69 percent), initiatives to 

reduce class size (34 percent), and a need to add or expand an academic support program (33 percent) 

(table 4). Other reasons, cited by 14 percent or fewer of the principals, were changes in the academic 

programs or curriculum such as the introduction of a foreign language (14 percent); the need for space for 

new or expanded technology (12 percent); the introduction of prekindergarten, Head Start, or another 

early childhood program (11 percent); temporary relocation of staff or students due to renovation or 

replacement of existing buildings (11 percent); the introduction of all-day kindergarten (9 percent); the 

need for additional office or administrative space (7 percent); and other reasons (13 percent). Many of 

these reasons involved the configuration of the schools: whether or not the schools were overcrowded, 

they used the space provided by portable buildings to accomplish policy objectives such as reducing class 

size or supporting academic programs. 

Some categories of schools gave different responses than others. Principals in medium or 

large schools were much more likely to give an increase in enrollment as a reason (75 and 85 percent 

compared with 37 percent among small schools), and principals in the Northeast were more likely than 

those in the Southeast to give the introduction of all-day kindergarten as a reason (22 percent versus 1 

percent). Principals at schools with minority enrollments of 50 percent or more were more likely than 

those at schools with minority enrollments of less than 6 percent to give initiatives to reduce class size as 

a reason (44 percent versus 24 percent). 

Types of use. The portable buildings were used in a variety of ways: for general 

classrooms (73 percent of schools with portables), academic support areas (58 percent), storage (27 

percent), music rooms (26 percent), before- and after-school care for school-age children (13 percent), 

early childhood programs (11 percent), art rooms (10 percent), computer labs (9 percent), language labs 
10 

(9 percent), office/administrative space (9 percent), library media centers (6 percent), teacher work rooms 

(6 percent), day care centers for preschool-age children (4 percent), and other uses (14 percent) (table 5). 

There were some differences between schools based on school characteristics (table 5). 

Using the portables as general classrooms was more common in large schools (88 percent) than in small 

schools (55 percent), in schools with a minority enrollment of 50 percent or more (82 percent) than in 

schools with minority enrollments lower than 6 percent (63 percent), and in the Southeast and West than 

in the Central region (71 and 80 percent, respectively, versus 47 percent; the 23 percentage point 

difference between the Northeast and Central regions was not statistically significant due to large 

standard errors). 

 Anticipated Reductions in Overcrowding 

Of those principals who considered their schools to be overcrowded, 40 percent anticipated 

that the overcrowding would be substantially reduced or eliminated within the next 3 years (table 6). The 

reasons that they gave included the completion of new permanent buildings or additions to existing 

buildings (68 percent), the completion of new schools nearby (43 percent), school boundary changes with 

existing schools (37 percent), and projected declines in the school-age population in the school’s service 

area (17 percent).1

 

Availability of Dedicated Space in Selected Areas 

Schools often had dedicated rooms or facilities to support particular subject areas: 83 

percent had a gymnasium to support physical education, 81 percent had one or more music rooms, 70 

percent had one or more art rooms, and 48 percent had one or more science labs (table 7). For each of 

these kinds of space, between 69 and 78 percent of principals at schools with such facilities said that the 

room/facility supported their school’s ability to deliver instruction to a major extent. Additionally, 

between 13 and 20 percent said that the room/facility supported instruction to a moderate extent, while 5 

to 8 percent said they supported instruction to a minor extent, and 3 to 5 percent said that the 

room/facility did not support delivering instruction at all. 

 

1

 Because only 15 percent of the principals considered their schools to be overcrowded, the standard errors for all of these statistics tend to be 

high, and comparisons among different subgroups of schools generally are not significant. 
11 

For each of the four subject areas, secondary/combined schools were more likely to have 

dedicated rooms/facilities than elementary schools: 93 percent had a science lab (compared with 34 

percent of elementary schools), 89 percent had an art room (compared with 64 percent), 91 percent had a 

music room (compared with 78 percent), and 94 percent had a gymnasium (compared with 80 percent) 

(table 8). Dedicated facilities were also more common in large schools than small schools (70 percent 

versus 40 percent for science labs, 81 percent versus 60 percent for art rooms, and 92 percent versus 68 

percent for music rooms; there was no difference for gymnasiums, at 85 percent versus 83 percent) and in 

schools with the lowest poverty concentration than in schools with the highest poverty concentration (51 

percent versus 37 percent for science labs, 80 percent versus 50 percent for art rooms, 86 percent versus 

65 percent for music rooms, and 88 percent versus 67 percent for gymnasiums). There is considerable 

overlap among schools in cities, those with high percentages of minority students, and those with high 

poverty levels. Thus, schools in cities and those with high percentages of minorities were like high 

poverty schools in being generally less likely to have all four types of dedicated rooms examined in the 

survey, though the pattern was not as consistent for these other measures, and at least one type of room 

had statistically insignificant differences. When such facilities were available, generally 85 percent or 

more of the principals said the rooms supported instruction to a moderate or major extent, whether 

looking at overall statistics or at subcategories of schools. 

Environmental Factors and School Buildings 

In addition to looking at the availability of space, the survey also asked about the quality of 

the space in terms of various environmental factors. Nine specific environmental factors were listed: 

artificial lighting, indoor air quality, size or configuration of rooms, acoustics or noise control, physical 

condition, ventilation, heating, natural lighting, and air conditioning. Since these factors might differ 

depending on whether they refer to permanent buildings or portable buildings, the questionnaire asked 

about each type of building separately. The questionnaire also asked about these environmental factors in 

two ways: with regard to overall satisfaction and the impact on instruction. 

Satisfaction With Environmental Factors 

 Classrooms Located in Permanent Buildings 

Principals were asked if each of the nine environmental factors was very satisfactory, 

satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or very unsatisfactory. For three of these factors that may not be present in 
12 

every school (natural lighting, heating, and air conditioning), principals were also provided with an 

additional response category of not applicable: 17 percent said that air conditioning was not applicable 

with regard to their permanent buildings, 3 percent chose not applicable for natural lighting, and 1 percent 

for heating (table 9). Determining satisfaction in these situations is difficult because some principals may 

consider the lack of a feature to be unsatisfactory (i.e., an unmet need), while others may be satisfied. 

Rather than ignoring principals who responded with not applicable, the remainder of this text includes all 

principals when stating the percentage of principals who were known to be satisfied. An alternative 

would be to present the percentage who were satisfied among those principals who expressed an opinion, 

but this might create the impression that lacking these factors is not an issue when it may be an important 

issue for some schools. 

Overall, for each of the nine environmental factors, between 21 and 39 percent of principals 

said the classrooms located in their permanent buildings were very satisfactory, and between 39 percent 

and 64 percent said they were satisfactory (figure 3; table 9). Relatively few said that the schools were 

unsatisfactory (7 to 14 percent) or very unsatisfactory (1 to 6 percent) in these areas. In fact, 80 percent 

or more said that each factor was either satisfactory or very satisfactory, with the only exception being air 

conditioning (with 17 percent saying that air conditioning was not applicable). 

In general, 80 percent or more of the various subgroups of schools were satisfied with the 

environmental factors, as was reported for all schools combined (table 10). The primary exception was 

for air conditioning, with strong regional differences (72 and 82 percent said the air conditioning was 

satisfactory or very satisfactory in the West and Southeast, versus 40 and 53 percent in the Northeast and 

Central regions) and differences based on school enrollment size (72 percent in large schools versus 53 

percent in small schools). Again, schools that did not have air conditioning were counted by using the 

separate category “not applicable,” so these differences in satisfaction include differences in the degree to 

which air conditioning was available.2

 

 

2

 For region, the percentages indicating that air conditioning was not applicable were as follows: Northeast–31 percent, Southeast–1 percent, 

Central–25 percent, and West–14 percent. For school size, the percentages were as follows: small–25 percent, medium–15 percent, and large–

10 percent. 
13 

Figure 3. Satisfaction with environmental factors in permanent buildings: Fall 2005 

24

30

27

22

31

21

28

23

39

39

52

55

61

53

64

58

64

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Air conditioning 

Natural lighting 

Heating 

Ventilation

Physical condition

Acoustics or noise control

Size or configuration of rooms

Indoor air quality

Artificial lighting

Percent

Very satisfactory

Satisfactory

1

1

1

1

For some respondents this environmental factor was not applicable. Seventeen percent had no air conditioning, 3 percent had no natural lighting, 

and 1 percent had no heating. Such responses could indicate either the lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here are based on all 

responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 Classrooms Located in Portable Buildings 

Principals also perceived that classrooms located in their portable buildings were satisfactory 

with regard to the same environmental factors (figure 4; tables 11 and 12). For four of the factors, 

principals were more likely to be satisfied with their permanent buildings than their portable buildings: 

acoustics or noise control (86 percent versus 77 percent), the size or configuration of the rooms (86 

percent versus 79 percent), the physical condition (83 percent versus 74 percent), and the natural lighting 

(82 percent versus 72 percent). On the other hand, they were more likely to be satisfied with portable 

buildings with regard to heating (89 percent versus 83 percent) and air conditioning (84 percent versus 63 

percent). A major source of the difference with regard to air conditioning was that only 3 percent of 

schools said that air conditioning was not applicable with regard to portable buildings, while 17 percent 

gave that response with regard to permanent buildings. 
14 

Figure 4. Percent of public schools indicating that various factors were satisfactory or very 

satisfactory, by type of building: Fall 2005 

63

82

83

83

83

86

86

87

92

84

72

89

81

74

79

77

82

91

0 20 40 60 80 100

Air conditioning

Natural lighting

Heating

Ventilation

Physical condition

Size or configuration of rooms

Acoustics or noise control

Indoor air quality

Artificial lighting

Percent

Portable

buildings

Permanent

buildings

1

1

1

1

For some respondents, this environmental factor was not applicable. For permanent buildings, 17 percent had no air conditioning, 3 percent 

had no natural lighting, and 1 percent had no heating. For portable buildings, 4 percent had no natural lighting, 3 percent had no air 

conditioning, and 1 percent had no heating. Such responses could indicate either the lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here 

are based on all responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

NOTE: Statistics are from tables 10 and 12, and may differ from those in tables 9 and 11 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005.

Impact on Instruction 

In addition to asking about satisfaction with the nine environmental factors, the 

questionnaire also asked about the extent to which the factors interfered with the ability of the school to 

deliver instruction. Principals were given four categories for their responses: not at all, to a minor extent, 

to a moderate extent, and to a major extent; for the three categories of heating, air conditioning, and 

natural lighting, they could also reply that the environmental factor was not applicable (this primarily was 

a consideration with regard to air conditioning in permanent buildings). As with the immediately 

preceding discussion of satisfaction, the absence of a factor such as air conditioning could interfere with 
15 

the ability of the school to provide instruction. This discussion therefore includes all schools when 

presenting percentages rather than providing percentages only for those schools that provided an opinion. 

Even when combining together the two categories “to a moderate extent” and “to a major 

extent,” relatively few schools indicated that the factors interfered with instruction: the percentages 

indicating there were problems ranged from 6 to 16 percent with regard to permanent buildings, and from 

8 to 18 percent with regard to portable buildings (figure 5; tables 13, 14, 15, and 16). Acoustics or noise 

control was more likely to interfere with instruction in portable buildings (18 percent) than in permanent 

buildings (12 percent). 

Figure 5. Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfered with 

their ability to deliver instruction, by type of building: Fall 2005 

6

6

9

10

12

12

12

13

16

8

9

12

13

9

14

18

16

11

0 10 20 30 40

Artificial lighting

Natural lighting

Indoor air quality

Physical condition

Heating

Ventilation

Acoustics or noise control

Size or configuration of rooms

Air conditioning

Percent

Portable buildings

Permanent buildings

//

100

 1

 1

 1

1

Respondents could indicate this environmental factor was not applicable. In permanent buildings, 17 percent had no air conditioning, 3 percent 

had no natural lighting, and 1 percent had no heating. In portable buildings, 4 percent had no natural lighting, 3 percent had no air conditioning, 

and 1 percent had no heating. Such responses could indicate either the lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here are based on all 

responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

NOTE: Statistics are from tables 14 and 16, and may differ from those in tables 13 and 15 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005.
16 

Looking at all nine factors together, roughly one-third of schools indicated that there was at 

least one factor that interfered with their ability to deliver instruction to at least a moderate extent (32 

percent with regard to permanent buildings, and 35 percent with regard to portable buildings; figure 6). 

Figure 6. Percent of public schools indicating various numbers of environmental factors 

interfered with the ability of the school to deliver instruction to a moderate or major 

extent, by type of building: Fall 2005 

10

11

11

68

12

11

11

65

0 20 40 60 80 100

4 or more

2 or 3

1

None

Percent

Portable buildings

Permanent buildings

NOTE: Statistics for portable buildings are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable buildings. Details may not 

sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005.

Principals also were asked to describe the overall extent to which environmental factors 

interfered with the delivery of instruction, taking all of these factors together. The results were similar for 

permanent and portable buildings (table 17). About half (55 and 56 percent) of principals said that these 

environmental factors did not interfere at all with the delivery of instruction, while the remainder reported 

at least some interference: 30 and 33 percent reported there was interference to a minor extent, 9 to 13 

percent to a moderate extent, and 1 and 2 percent to a major extent. 
17 

Cleanliness and Maintenance of Student Restrooms 

Close to all of the principals were either satisfied (50 percent) or very satisfied (42 percent) 

with the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms at the school (table 18). Seven percent said the 

cleanliness and maintenance were unsatisfactory, and 1 percent said they were very unsatisfactory. 

Schools in the two lowest categories of poverty concentration were more often very satisfied with the 

cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms than schools with the highest poverty concentration (47 

percent for both categories versus 31 percent). 

Conclusion 

There continues to be a mismatch between enrollment and capacity in many schools, but 

problems with overenrollment have decreased somewhat: the percentage that were underenrolled by 6 to 

25 percent increased from 33 percent in 1999 to 38 percent in 2005, and the percentage that were 

overenrolled by 6 to 25 percent decreased from 14 percent to 10 percent. Further improvement is 

anticipated in those schools experiencing overcrowding: 40 percent of the principals in these schools 

anticipated that the overcrowding would be substantially reduced or eliminated within the next 3 years. 

However, space issues do not occur solely because of high enrollments; they also depend on 

how the space is configured. About a third of schools (37 percent) used portable buildings, sometimes as 

a strategy for dealing with overenrollment, but sometimes also for purposes such as reducing class sizes 

or supporting academic programs. 

Looking at nine environmental factors that help to establish the quality of the space, between 

63 percent and 92 percent of principals were satisfied with their permanent buildings (depending on the 

factor), and between 72 percent and 91 percent were satisfied with their portable buildings. With regard 

to permanent buildings, the only factor showing fewer than 80 percent were satisfied was air 

conditioning, largely due to the fact that 17 percent did not have air conditioning and thus rated it as not 

applicable (rather than either satisfactory or unsatisfactory). Portable buildings were more likely than 

permanent buildings to have air conditioning, and some of the features receiving the lowest satisfaction 

concerning portable buildings were natural lighting, physical condition, and acoustics or noise control. 
18 

Close to half of principals indicated that one or more of the nine environmental factors 

interfered with instruction to at least some extent: between 30 and 33 percent reported interference to a 

minor extent, 9 and 13 percent to a moderate extent, and 1 and 2 percent to a major extent. 
19 

References 

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., and Shang, Y. (2005). Fix It and They Might Stay: School Facility Quality 

and Teacher Retention in Washington, D.C. Teachers College Record, 107(5):1107-1123. 

Chicago Public Schools. (2005). Enrollment and Transfer of Students in the Chicago Public Schools. 

Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual, section 702.1, Board Report 05-0824-PO3. 

Colmenar, R., Estrada, F., Lo, T., and Raya, R. (2005). Ending School Overcrowding in California: 

Building Quality Schools for All Children. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink. 

DeJong, W.S., and Craig, J. (2000). Defining Capacity. Educational Facility Planner, 35(3):18-22. 

Lackney, J.A. (1999). The Relationship Between Environmental Quality of School Facilities and School 

Performance. Briefing to U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, September 23, 

1999. 

Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., and Kaplan, J. (2000). Condition of America’s 

Public School Facilities: 1999 (NCES 2000–032). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

National Education Association. (2000). Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost? Washington, DC: 

National Education Association. 

Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? Washington, DC: National 

Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The Condition of 

Education 2005 (NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools 

(GAO/HEHS-95-61). Washington, DC: GAO. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing 

Conditions (GAO/HEHS-96-103). Washington, DC: GAO. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
21 

Tables of Estimates and Standard Errors 
22 

Table 1. Percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are underenrolled, at 

capacity, or overenrolled, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Underenrolled1 Overenrolled2 

School characteristic 

More than 

25 percent 6–25 percent

Enrollment 

within 5 percent 

of capacity 6–25 percent 

More than 

25 percent

 All public schools............................................... 21 38 22 10 8

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................................................. 20 39 23 10 8

Secondary/combined ............................................. 24 36 21 11 8

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................................................... 41 39 14 4 2

350 to 699.............................................................. 14 44 27 9 6

700 or more ........................................................... 6 29 26 20 19

 

School locale 

City ........................................................................ 16 36 23 11 14

Urban fringe/large town ........................................ 12 40 29 10 9

Small town/rural.................................................... 31 38 17 9 4

 

Region 

Northeast ............................................................... 23 43 25 7 2

Southeast ............................................................... 16 33 27 14 11

Central ................................................................... 27 47 18 6 2

West....................................................................... 19 32 22 13 15

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................................................ 29 46 20 5 #

6 to 20 percent ....................................................... 23 34 25 11 6

21 to 49 percent..................................................... 17 40 22 13 8

50 percent or more................................................. 16 36 22 10 16

 

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced- 

 price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............................................. 19 38 27 11 5

35 to 49 percent..................................................... 25 43 19 6 7

50 to 74 percent..................................................... 24 37 18 12 8

75 percent or more................................................. 19 36 22 9 14

#Rounds to zero. 

1

“Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent buildings and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by more than 

5 percent. 

2

“Overenrolled” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent buildings and instructional space by more 

than 5 percent. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
23 

Table 1-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they 

are underenrolled, at capacity, or overenrolled, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Underenrolled Overenrolled

School characteristic 

More than 

25 percent 6–25 percent

Enrollment 

within 5 percent 

of capacity 6–25 percent 

More than 

25 percent

 All public schools............................................... 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................................................. 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.3

Secondary/combined ............................................. 2.6 2.6 1.9 1.2 1.0

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................................................... 3.3 3.4 2.3 1.1 0.9

350 to 699.............................................................. 1.7 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.4

700 or more ........................................................... 1.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.5

 

School locale 

City ........................................................................ 2.3 3.6 3.0 2.1 2.6

Urban fringe/large town ........................................ 1.9 3.2 2.4 1.9 1.6

Small town/rural.................................................... 2.6 3.0 2.5 1.6 1.0

 

Region 

Northeast ............................................................... 3.7 4.6 4.0 2.0 1.4

Southeast ............................................................... 3.2 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.1

Central ................................................................... 3.0 3.5 2.4 1.5 0.8

West....................................................................... 2.0 2.8 3.1 1.9 2.1

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................................................ 3.9 4.6 3.1 1.7 †

6 to 20 percent ....................................................... 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.0 1.7

21 to 49 percent..................................................... 2.8 4.0 3.8 2.8 1.9

50 percent or more................................................. 2.2 3.3 2.3 1.5 2.7

 

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced- 

 price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............................................. 2.6 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.0

35 to 49 percent..................................................... 4.6 4.0 3.3 2.0 2.3

50 to 74 percent..................................................... 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.2

75 percent or more................................................. 3.0 4.1 2.9 1.6 2.9

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
24 

Table 2. Percent of public schools where the principal considers the school overcrowded, and the 

percent of those using various approaches to deal with the overcrowding, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 

Approaches to deal with overcrowding1 

School characteristic 

Consider 

school 

overcrowded 

Building new 

permanent 

buildings or 

additions to 

existing 

buildings

Using portable 

(temporary) 

classrooms

Converting 

nonclassroom 

space into 

classrooms

Using off-site 

instructional 

facilities 

Increasing 

class sizes Other 

 

 All public schools............... 15 35 78 53 5 44 12

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 15 34 82 51 1 40 11

Secondary/combined ............. 16 39 65 57 16 58 15

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 5 29 55 49 4 48 #

350 to 699.............................. 14 29 84 42 2 41 7

700 or more ........................... 32 41 78 60 7 46 18

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 20 29 90 57 5 37 9

Urban fringe/large town ........ 16 33 79 55 4 56 20

Small town/rural.................... 12 43 66 46 6 39 6

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 10 43 59 71 # 57 6

Southeast ............................... 21 45 85 53 3 29 16

Central ................................... 7 42 41 63 9 73 3

West....................................... 22 25 88 45 6 43 13

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 5 45 51 68 7 66 12

6 to 20 percent ....................... 15 36 67 56 2 55 12

21 to 49 percent..................... 18 39 84 45 8 30 8

50 percent or more................. 23 30 84 55 5 47 13

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 13 33 64 57 6 54 17

35 to 49 percent..................... 13 39 93 30 5 27 13

50 to 74 percent..................... 17 35 83 46 1 43 1

75 percent or more................. 20 37 83 66 7 42 15

#Rounds to zero. 

1

Data are based on the 15 percent of public schools where the principal considers the school overcrowded. Principals did not have the 

opportunity to say the school was overcrowded unless the enrollment exceeded the number of students the school was designed to serve. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
25 

Table 2-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools where the principal considers the 

school overcrowded, and the standard errors for the percent of those using various 

approaches to deal with the overcrowding, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Approaches to deal with overcrowding

School characteristic 

Consider 

school 

overcrowded 

Building new 

permanent 

buildings or 

additions to 

existing 

buildings

Using portable 

(temporary) 

classrooms

Converting 

nonclassroom 

space into 

classrooms

Using off-site 

instructional 

facilities 

Increasing 

class sizes Other

 

 All public schools............... 1.3 3.9 3.0 4.9 1.1 4.5 2.8

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 1.7 5.3 3.9 5.9 0.9 5.6 3.5

Secondary/combined ............. 1.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.1 6.0 3.7

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 1.3 14.6 16.3 16.1 4.4 16.3 †

350 to 699.............................. 2.3 6.7 5.1 8.8 1.3 8.8 3.6

700 or more ........................... 2.7 5.3 3.6 5.3 2.1 5.8 4.4

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 2.4 6.2 4.0 8.0 2.4 7.8 3.2

Urban fringe/large town ........ 2.1 6.3 5.7 5.8 1.5 7.3 5.6

Small town/rural.................... 1.9 6.6 6.9 9.1 2.4 8.0 3.8

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 2.5 14.5 13.4 13.2 † 13.7 3.2

Southeast ............................... 2.9 9.7 5.9 8.1 1.3 9.7 5.5

Central ................................... 1.4 11.2 11.8 12.2 4.1 8.9 2.0

West....................................... 2.5 4.9 3.1 6.8 2.2 5.4 4.8

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 1.3 16.9 17.7 16.2 5.4 17.3 7.5

6 to 20 percent ....................... 2.5 9.5 8.7 10.3 1.7 9.8 5.4

21 to 49 percent..................... 2.9 9.1 5.2 12.0 3.8 8.3 6.0

50 percent or more................. 2.6 5.5 4.6 6.8 1.9 7.5 4.5

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 1.6 6.6 6.3 7.2 2.0 7.1 5.5

35 to 49 percent..................... 2.6 12.2 3.9 11.2 3.2 9.9 9.2

50 to 74 percent..................... 3.5 10.3 5.8 9.7 0.9 9.9 1.1

75 percent or more................. 2.8 6.2 5.6 7.4 3.1 7.6 4.8

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
26 

Table 3. Number and percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings, portable 

(temporary) buildings, and classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 

Classrooms in 

permanent buildings 

Have portable 

(temporary) buildings 

Classrooms in portable 

(temporary) buildings 

School characteristic Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 

 All public schools............... 80,200 99 30,000 37 27,000 33

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 61,000 99 24,400 40 21,700 35

Secondary/combined ............. 19,200 99 5,600 29 5,300 28

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 27,000 99 7,300 27 5,800 21

350 to 699.............................. 32,400 99 11,900 36 10,800 33

700 or more ........................... 20,700 99 10,800 52 10,300 49

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 19,200 99 9,600 49 9,000 46

Urban fringe/large town ........ 27,400 99 10,900 39 9,500 34

Small town/rural.................... 33,600 1001 9,500 28 8,500 25

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 14,700 99 2,900 20 2,400 17

Southeast ............................... 17,200 99 7,100 41 6,800 40

Central ................................... 22,900 99 3,900 17 3,300 14

West....................................... 25,500 99 16,000 62 14,400 56

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 19,500 1001 3,700 19 3,600 18

6 to 20 percent ....................... 20,300 99 6,500 32 5,600 27

21 to 49 percent..................... 15,800 100 6,600 42 5,800 37

50 percent or more................. 22,500 98 12,200 53 11,200 49

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 32,700 99 10,200 31 8,800 27

35 to 49 percent..................... 13,400 100 4,700 35 4,200 31

50 to 74 percent..................... 18,500 99 7,800 42 7,100 38

75 percent or more................. 15,600 98 7,300 46 6,800 43

1

Estimate is rounded to 100 percent for presentation in table. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
27 

Table 3-A. Standard errors for the number and percent of public schools with classrooms in 

permanent buildings, portable (temporary) buildings, and classrooms in portable 

(temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Classrooms in 

permanent buildings 

Have portable 

(temporary) buildings 

Classrooms in portable 

(temporary) buildings 

School characteristic Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 

 All public schools............... 640 0.4 1,550 1.9 1,370 1.7

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 760 0.5 1,520 2.5 1,310 2.1

Secondary/combined ............. 310 0.5 400 1.9 400 1.9

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 1,010 0.5 930 3.1 780 2.6

350 to 699.............................. 1,240 0.6 970 2.9 970 2.7

700 or more ........................... 720 0.5 720 2.8 710 2.9

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 1,020 1.0 1,050 4.1 910 3.6

Urban fringe/large town ........ 1,330 0.7 890 3.1 810 3.0

Small town/rural.................... 1,190 † 1,050 2.9 1,010 2.8

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 1,330 0.6 560 3.3 470 2.9

Southeast ............................... 1,370 0.5 920 4.0 890 4.0

Central ................................... 1,530 0.6 710 2.8 710 2.8

West....................................... 1,650 1.2 1,400 3.3 1,180 2.7

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 1,050 † 690 3.2 690 3.2

6 to 20 percent ....................... 1,150 0.7 860 3.6 740 3.1

21 to 49 percent..................... 1,050 † 800 4.3 680 3.6

50 percent or more................. 1,010 1.0 1,000 3.5 910 3.4

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 1,220 0.5 1,030 2.9 940 2.7

35 to 49 percent..................... 1,080 † 660 4.6 610 4.4

50 to 74 percent..................... 1,240 0.7 800 3.3 750 3.0

75 percent or more................. 1,030 1.2 850 3.9 810 3.9

†Not applicable. Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 100 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
28 

Table 4. Percent of public schools indicating various reasons for using portable (temporary) 

buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Increase in 

enrollment

Introduction of allday kindergarten

Introduction of 

prekindergarten, 

Head Start, or other 

early childhood 

program

Initiatives 

to reduce 

class size 

Changes in 

academic programs/

curriculum

 All public schools............... 69 9 11 34 14

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 68 11 13 36 14

Secondary/combined ............. 74 1 5 28 15

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 37 10 13 29 16

350 to 699.............................. 75 13 13 35 13

700 or more ........................... 85 3 8 36 14

School locale 

City ........................................ 79 11 12 35 15

Urban fringe/large town ........ 66 6 13 34 14

Small town/rural.................... 62 10 9 34 13

Region 

Northeast ............................... 66 22 10 17 18

Southeast ............................... 75 1 16 33 14

Central ................................... 56 11 17 20 9

West....................................... 70 9 8 41 14

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 57 12 23 24 12

6 to 20 percent ....................... 69 7 7 23 11

21 to 49 percent..................... 64 4 2 33 16

50 percent or more................. 76 12 17 44 15

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 69 9 7 26 14

35 to 49 percent..................... 67 3 7 34 11

50 to 74 percent..................... 67 7 15 37 15

75 percent or more................. 73 15 17 43 16

See notes at end of table. 
29 

Table 4. Percent of public schools indicating various reasons for using portable (temporary) 

buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005—Continued 

School characteristic 

Need to add or 

expand academic 

support programs

Need for space 

for new or 

expanded 

technology

Need for 

additional office/

administrative 

space

Temporary 

relocation of staff or 

students due to 

renovation/ 

replacement of 

existing buildings Other reason

 All public schools............... 33 12 7 11 13

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 34 13 7 10 12

Secondary/combined ............. 31 6 6 14 16

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 34 12 12 8 29

350 to 699.............................. 34 13 5 8 7

700 or more ........................... 32 10 6 15 9

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 28 9 7 15 9

Urban fringe/large town ........ 34 10 6 12 10

Small town/rural.................... 38 16 8 4 19

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 19 3 17 7 24

Southeast ............................... 46 13 5 9 7

Central ................................... 38 13 2 9 9

West....................................... 29 12 7 12 14

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 30 13 4 3 20

6 to 20 percent ....................... 37 14 5 4 13

21 to 49 percent..................... 31 6 3 13 9

50 percent or more................. 32 13 11 16 13

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 29 5 3 10 10

35 to 49 percent..................... 44 12 1 11 12

50 to 74 percent..................... 36 20 6 11 18

75 percent or more................. 30 12 16 11 11

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. Detail for percent 

minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
30 

Table 4-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating various reasons for using 

portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Increase in 

enrollment

Introduction of allday kindergarten

Introduction of 

prekindergarten, 

Head Start, or other 

early childhood 

program

Initiatives 

to reduce 

class size 

Changes in 

academic programs/

curriculum

 All public schools............... 3.2 1.8 2.4 2.8 2.3

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 3.8 2.2 2.8 3.3 2.6

Secondary/combined ............. 4.0 0.9 2.1 3.1 3.5

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 7.4 4.2 6.0 5.8 4.8

350 to 699.............................. 4.4 3.6 4.1 4.5 3.1

700 or more ........................... 2.7 1.5 2.4 4.6 2.9

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 4.5 3.7 3.5 4.7 4.0

Urban fringe/large town ........ 3.9 2.6 3.5 4.6 3.4

Small town/rural.................... 6.0 3.4 3.4 5.8 3.5

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 12.0 9.8 7.5 7.2 7.8

Southeast ............................... 4.9 1.0 4.8 5.6 3.7

Central ................................... 9.0 5.6 8.3 8.1 5.2

West....................................... 4.0 2.4 3.0 3.7 3.7

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 9.2 6.6 8.1 6.1 6.3

6 to 20 percent ....................... 6.8 4.1 3.4 6.1 4.2

21 to 49 percent..................... 6.3 2.7 2.1 5.8 4.4

50 percent or more................. 3.5 3.1 4.0 4.7 2.7

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 5.7 3.3 3.4 4.8 4.0

35 to 49 percent..................... 7.8 2.7 3.9 7.1 4.2

50 to 74 percent..................... 5.9 4.2 4.9 6.7 4.3

75 percent or more................. 4.4 3.0 4.1 5.2 3.9

See notes at end of table. 
31 

Table 4-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating various reasons for using 

portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005—Continued 

School characteristic 

Need to add or 

expand academic 

support programs

Need for space 

for new or 

expanded 

technology

Need for 

additional office/

administrative 

space

Temporary 

relocation of staff or 

students due to 

renovation/ 

replacement of 

existing buildings Other reason

 All public schools............... 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.1

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 3.3 2.2 1.4 2.1 2.6

Secondary/combined ............. 3.1 1.7 1.8 2.3 3.6

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.2 5.6

350 to 699.............................. 4.8 3.3 1.6 3.1 2.4

700 or more ........................... 3.9 2.7 1.6 2.7 2.2

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 4.4 2.7 2.0 4.3 3.0

Urban fringe/large town ........ 5.3 2.9 2.1 2.7 3.4

Small town/rural.................... 4.6 4.1 2.8 1.8 4.1

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 7.3 3.3 8.1 4.1 9.5

Southeast ............................... 6.7 4.8 2.0 3.3 2.8

Central ................................... 8.8 5.7 1.3 4.6 5.1

West....................................... 3.8 2.2 1.5 2.6 2.6

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 7.5 5.3 2.2 1.9 7.1

6 to 20 percent ....................... 5.4 4.4 3.3 2.3 5.1

21 to 49 percent..................... 6.0 2.9 1.9 3.8 3.6

50 percent or more................. 4.6 2.8 2.1 3.6 2.8

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 5.3 2.4 1.9 2.5 4.3

35 to 49 percent..................... 7.2 4.4 1.0 5.6 4.7

50 to 74 percent..................... 5.3 4.9 2.6 4.1 5.3

75 percent or more................. 5.0 3.5 3.5 2.9 3.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
32 

Table 5. Percent of public schools using portable (temporary) buildings in various ways, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

General 

classroom 

Academic 

support area

Music 

room

Art 

room

Computer 

lab 

Language 

lab 

Library media 

center

 

 All public schools............... 73 58 26 10 9 9 6

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 71 60 30 10 9 10 7

Secondary/combined ............. 82 50 9 10 8 5 2

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 55 59 28 9 9 8 14

350 to 699.............................. 70 54 29 11 9 11 6

700 or more ........................... 88 61 22 10 8 8 2

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 82 53 25 8 9 11 4

Urban fringe/large town ........ 73 55 23 8 7 8 6

Small town/rural.................... 64 67 31 14 10 8 8

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 70 47 21 12 2 # #

Southeast ............................... 71 78 23 9 9 12 6

Central ................................... 47 44 34 7 3 # 3

West....................................... 80 54 27 11 11 12 8

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 63 56 38 17 11 2 9

6 to 20 percent ....................... 65 53 18 9 9 14 4

21 to 49 percent..................... 71 65 22 7 4 3 4

50 percent or more................. 82 54 29 9 10 10 7

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 72 54 21 11 6 8 3

35 to 49 percent..................... 68 69 27 5 5 13 12

50 to 74 percent..................... 69 61 24 12 11 7 6

75 percent or more................. 82 53 35 10 11 10 7

See notes at end of table. 
33 

Table 5. Percent of public schools using portable (temporary) buildings in various ways, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005—Continued 

School characteristic 

Early 

childhood 

programs 

Day care 

center for 

preschool-age 

children

Before- and 

after-school 

care for 

school-age 

children

Office/ 

administrative 

space

Teacher work 

room Storage Other

 

 All public schools............... 11 4 13 9 6 27 14

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 13 4 15 9 5 27 14

Secondary/combined ............. 4 5 4 10 10 29 13

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 9 2 3 10 9 31 19

350 to 699.............................. 12 5 24 6 4 26 9

700 or more ........................... 12 4 6 13 7 27 15

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 12 7 18 13 5 24 13

Urban fringe/large town ........ 14 3 13 7 9 29 15

Small town/rural.................... 6 3 6 7 5 29 13

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 7 1 5 14 12 18 12

Southeast ............................... 13 1 13 12 3 19 12

Central ................................... 14 4 10 3 7 35 7

West....................................... 10 6 14 9 6 31 16

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 11 4 7 3 3 26 10

6 to 20 percent ....................... 10 1 12 4 11 29 11

21 to 49 percent..................... 4 5 8 10 1 28 11

50 percent or more................. 16 6 15 14 8 28 18

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 6 3 11 4 5 27 12

35 to 49 percent..................... 5 5 14 4 # 28 6

50 to 74 percent..................... 12 2 12 9 6 25 19

75 percent or more................. 20 6 14 20 11 30 15

#Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. Detail for percent 

minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
34 

Table 5-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools using portable (temporary) buildings 

in various ways, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

General 

classrooms 

Academic 

support areas

Music 

room

Art 

room

Computer 

lab 

Language 

lab 

Library media 

center

 

 All public schools............... 2.7 2.9 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.4

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 3.1 3.4 3.3 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.7

Secondary/combined ............. 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.2 2.1 2.0 1.6

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 6.3 6.4 6.0 3.2 3.6 3.1 5.2

350 to 699.............................. 4.3 5.1 5.0 3.4 2.9 3.6 2.0

700 or more ........................... 3.2 3.7 4.1 2.8 2.2 2.5 1.5

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 4.1 5.7 4.6 2.9 3.4 3.8 2.1

Urban fringe/large town ........ 4.5 3.9 3.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.2

Small town/rural.................... 5.6 5.5 4.2 3.4 3.9 2.8 3.5

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 8.7 11.6 8.4 6.1 1.6 † †

Southeast ............................... 5.7 5.0 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.4 2.9

Central ................................... 8.7 9.7 8.6 6.7 3.3 † 3.3

West....................................... 3.6 3.8 3.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.2

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 9.0 8.7 9.1 7.8 5.2 2.3 5.1

6 to 20 percent ....................... 5.6 6.2 5.7 4.2 4.3 5.2 2.9

21 to 49 percent..................... 6.3 6.1 4.7 3.1 1.8 1.8 2.8

50 percent or more................. 3.7 4.8 4.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.2

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 5.7 5.9 3.9 3.2 2.6 3.2 2.0

35 to 49 percent..................... 7.0 6.6 6.3 2.9 3.2 5.1 5.1

50 to 74 percent..................... 5.5 6.5 5.8 4.6 3.8 3.0 2.9

75 percent or more................. 3.9 6.6 5.0 2.9 3.5 3.0 2.4

See notes at end of table. 
35 

Table 5-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools using portable (temporary) buildings 

in various ways, by school characteristics: Fall 2005—Continued 

School characteristic 

Early 

childhood 

programs 

Day care 

center for 

preschool-age 

children

Before- and

after-school 

care for 

school-age 

children

Office/ 

administrative 

space

Teacher work 

room Storage Other

 

 All public schools............... 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.5 1.3 2.5 1.9

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 2.0 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.5 3.0 2.2

Secondary/combined ............. 1.4 1.8 1.3 2.6 2.7 4.0 2.9

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 3.4 1.5 2.2 3.5 3.8 4.6 4.7

350 to 699.............................. 3.2 2.0 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.8 3.0

700 or more ........................... 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.3

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 3.0 2.6 4.4 3.1 2.1 4.1 3.1

Urban fringe/large town ........ 3.6 1.5 3.3 2.3 2.4 4.3 3.6

Small town/rural.................... 2.6 1.4 2.5 2.6 2.3 4.1 3.2

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 4.4 1.0 4.0 6.3 8.0 6.7 7.6

Southeast ............................... 4.0 0.5 4.7 3.6 1.9 3.5 3.8

Central ................................... 6.6 2.4 6.5 2.6 4.1 8.7 6.5

West....................................... 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.1 1.8 3.6 2.7

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 5.7 2.5 5.0 1.8 2.5 9.3 5.3

6 to 20 percent ....................... 4.7 0.8 4.6 2.2 3.9 6.5 4.4

21 to 49 percent..................... 2.5 3.9 3.8 3.4 0.8 5.5 3.5

50 percent or more................. 2.9 2.1 3.1 2.7 2.1 3.7 3.6

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 2.9 1.7 3.6 1.7 2.2 4.5 3.7

35 to 49 percent..................... 3.0 2.9 5.5 2.9 † 7.4 2.7

50 to 74 percent..................... 4.2 1.7 4.7 3.1 3.4 5.4 4.2

75 percent or more................. 4.0 2.4 4.1 3.6 3.2 4.5 3.9

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
36 

Table 6. Percent of overcrowded public schools that anticipate that the overcrowding will be 

substantially reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years, and the percent of those giving 

various reasons that the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Reasons the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated2 

School characteristic 

Anticipated 

overcrowding 

will be 

substantially 

reduced or 

eliminated1 

New permanent 

buildings or 

additions to 

existing 

buildings will be 

completed

Construction of 

new schools 

nearby will be 

completed

School boundary 

changes with 

existing schools 

will be 

implemented

School-age 

population in this 

school’s service 

area is projected 

to decline Other reason

 

 All public schools............... 40 68 43 37 17 5

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 39 68 42 40 16 4

Secondary/combined ............. 42 66 44 26 21 8

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 54 71 11 11 18 11

350 to 699.............................. 34 66 36 42 17 5

700 or more ........................... 42 67 55 40 17 4

School locale 

City ........................................ 38 55 28 36 28 #

Urban fringe/large town ........ 37 61 63 44 18 6

Small town/rural.................... 45 84 37 30 8 8

Region 

Northeast ............................... 60 76 54 38 14 #

Southeast ............................... 35 85 27 50 8 8

Central ................................... 34 69 37 21 27 #

West....................................... 40 55 49 32 21 7

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 24 100 48 # # #

6 to 20 percent ....................... 46 73 43 29 17 #

21 to 49 percent..................... 45 79 54 54 14 6

50 percent or more................. 40 53 34 35 22 9

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 39 80 57 24 11 #

35 to 49 percent..................... 53 66 50 70 17 12

50 to 74 percent..................... 30 73 20 15 19 #

75 percent or more................. 45 51 38 44 23 11

#Rounds to zero. 

1

Data are based on the 15 percent of public schools where the principal considers the school overcrowded. 

2

Data are based on the 40 percent of overcrowded public schools that anticipate that the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated 

in the next 3 years. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
37 

Table 6-A. Standard errors for the percent of overcrowded public schools that anticipate that the 

overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years, and the 

standard errors for the percent of those giving various reasons that the overcrowding 

will be substantially reduced or eliminated, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Reasons the overcrowding will be substantially reduced or eliminated

School characteristic 

Anticipated 

overcrowding 

will be 

substantially 

reduced or 

eliminated

New permanent 

buildings or 

additions to 

existing 

buildings will be 

completed

Construction of 

new schools 

nearby will be 

completed

School boundary 

changes with 

existing schools 

will be 

implemented

School-age 

population in this 

school’s service 

area is projected 

to decline Other reason

 

 All public schools............... 5.0 4.9 6.3 7.1 4.4 2.8

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 6.0 6.3 8.2 9.1 5.9 3.1

Secondary/combined ............. 5.5 9.8 8.7 7.2 6.6 6.1

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 16.1 21.1 12.5 12.5 19.2 11.8

350 to 699.............................. 8.3 12.2 14.2 14.7 9.7 5.6

700 or more ........................... 5.0 7.4 7.6 8.5 5.0 3.0

School locale 

City ........................................ 8.7 10.9 13.3 10.9 10.5 †

Urban fringe/large town ........ 6.7 9.8 9.1 11.3 6.6 5.1

Small town/rural.................... 9.0 8.7 12.2 12.2 7.1 5.9

Region 

Northeast ............................... 14.4 16.1 19.2 18.9 15.1 †

Southeast ............................... 8.7 7.5 11.3 14.9 4.9 6.9

Central ................................... 11.4 24.2 23.2 18.9 24.3 †

West....................................... 6.3 9.6 7.5 10.2 7.5 5.0

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 10.3 † 23.1 † † †

6 to 20 percent ....................... 10.6 11.9 14.1 15.0 10.3 †

21 to 49 percent..................... 8.3 12.1 13.1 17.2 10.5 6.3

50 percent or more................. 7.1 8.7 8.8 10.1 7.6 5.7

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 7.9 6.8 11.0 10.5 4.1 †

35 to 49 percent..................... 11.6 18.0 20.6 16.4 15.3 10.1

50 to 74 percent..................... 9.6 13.4 9.9 13.1 16.6 †

75 percent or more................. 8.1 12.0 13.5 12.3 10.2 7.7

†Not applicable. Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 0 or 100 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
38 

Table 7. Percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for science, art, music, and 

physical education, and the percentage distribution indicating the extent to which that 

dedicated room or facility supports the ability of the school to deliver instruction in that 

subject: Fall 2005 

Extent to which the dedicated room or facility supports the ability 

of the school to deliver instruction in that subject1 

Dedicated room or facility 

School has 

dedicated room 

or facility Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent

Science lab(s) ............................................................ 48 3 8 20 69

Art room(s)................................................................ 70 4 6 16 74

Music room(s) ........................................................... 81 5 5 14 76

Gymnasium ............................................................... 83 5 5 13 78

1

Data based on schools with that dedicated room or facility. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
39 

Table 7-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for 

science, art, music, and physical education, and the standard errors for the 

percentage distribution indicating the extent to which that dedicated room or facility 

supports the ability of the school to deliver instruction in that subject: Fall 2005 

Extent to which the dedicated room or facility supports the ability 

of the school to deliver instruction in that subject

Dedicated room or facility 

School has 

dedicated room 

or facility Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent

Science lab(s) ............................................................ 1.4 0.8 1.5 1.9 2.7

Art room(s)................................................................ 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.6 2.0

Music room(s) ........................................................... 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.5

Gymnasium ............................................................... 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
40 

Table 8. Percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for science, art, music, and 

physical education, and the percent of those indicating that the room or facility supports 

the ability of the school to deliver instruction in that subject to a moderate or major 

extent, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Science lab(s) Art room(s) Music room(s) Gymnasium 

School characteristic 

Has 

facility 

Supports 

instruction1

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction1

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction1 

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction1

 

 All public schools............... 48 89 70 90 81 90 83 91

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 34 87 64 90 78 89 80 90

Secondary/combined ............. 93 91 89 90 91 92 94 93

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 40 82 60 86 68 90 83 90

350 to 699.............................. 42 90 72 91 85 88 83 88

700 or more ........................... 70 92 81 92 92 93 85 95

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 44 90 67 90 73 88 70 86

Urban fringe/large town ........ 46 88 77 91 86 92 84 92

Small town/rural.................... 53 88 67 89 81 89 90 92

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 44 93 89 89 87 89 90 93

Southeast ............................... 52 94 71 92 87 92 84 92

Central ................................... 48 83 80 90 86 91 92 91

West....................................... 49 87 51 89 68 88 70 88

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 53 86 79 89 85 90 92 93

6 to 20 percent ....................... 44 89 75 91 82 93 88 91

21 to 49 percent..................... 52 90 76 91 88 88 88 90

50 percent or more................. 47 89 56 88 71 89 67 88

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 51 92 80 93 86 93 88 93

35 to 49 percent..................... 51 88 72 89 87 88 90 93

50 to 74 percent..................... 52 87 68 90 81 91 83 91

75 percent or more................. 37 84 50 83 65 85 67 81

1

Data based on schools with that dedicated room or facility. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
41 

Table 8-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools with a dedicated room or facility for 

science, art, music, and physical education, and the standard errors for the percent of 

those indicating that the room or facility supports the ability of the school to deliver 

instruction in that subject to a moderate or major extent, by school characteristics: 

Fall 2005 

Science lab(s) Art room(s) Music room(s) Gymnasium 

School characteristic 

Has 

facility 

Supports 

instruction

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction

Has 

facility

Supports 

instruction

 

 All public schools............... 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 1.9 2.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.5

Secondary/combined ............. 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 2.8 4.0 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.0

350 to 699.............................. 2.6 2.3 2.7 1.8 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.2

700 or more ........................... 2.6 1.7 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.5 1.2

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.2 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.1

Urban fringe/large town ........ 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.7

Small town/rural.................... 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 4.6 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.4

Southeast ............................... 3.4 2.3 3.4 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.2

Central ................................... 3.1 3.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.7 2.2

West....................................... 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.7 3.5 2.4 2.9 2.6

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.1

6 to 20 percent ....................... 3.5 3.1 3.3 2.3 3.2 2.1 2.8 2.5

21 to 49 percent..................... 3.8 4.2 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.4

50 percent or more................. 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.8 2.1 3.2 2.5

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.6

35 to 49 percent..................... 4.6 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.4

50 to 74 percent..................... 3.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.0 2.5 2.9 2.5

75 percent or more................. 3.3 3.9 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
42 

Table 9. Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or unsatisfactory 

various environmental factors are in classrooms located in permanent buildings: Fall 

2005 

Environmental factor 

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very 

unsatisfactory 

Not 

applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 39 53 7 1 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 30 52 12 3 3

Heating ..................................................................... 27 55 14 2 1

Air conditioning ....................................................... 24 39 14 6 17

Ventilation................................................................ 22 61 14 3 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 23 64 11 2 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 21 64 12 2 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 31 53 14 2 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 28 58 12 2 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 99 percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
43 

Table 9-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms located 

in permanent buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor 

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very 

unsatisfactory 

Not 

applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 1.6 1.8 0.9 0.3 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 1.6 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.6

Heating ..................................................................... 1.5 2.1 1.4 0.5 0.4

Air conditioning ....................................................... 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.6

Ventilation................................................................ 1.3 1.9 1.3 0.6 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 1.3 1.7 1.2 0.5 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.5 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 1.5 1.9 1.0 0.5 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
44 

Table 10. Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors are very 

satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in permanent buildings, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

All public schools............. 92 82 83 63 83 87 86 83 86

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 91 82 81 63 83 87 86 83 86

Secondary/combined ........ 95 82 86 62 83 87 85 83 85

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 92 85 81 53 85 88 88 82 85

350 to 699......................... 90 82 81 65 80 86 83 84 86

700 or more ...................... 95 78 87 72 84 88 85 83 86

 

School locale 

City ................................... 91 82 77 64 84 89 85 83 80

Urban fringe/large town ... 92 82 83 64 82 86 86 84 86

Small town/rural............... 93 82 86 61 83 87 86 83 89

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 91 87 77 40 82 86 85 80 88

Southeast .......................... 95 79 85 82 84 86 84 85 91

Central .............................. 91 86 82 53 79 84 85 84 82

West.................................. 92 78 84 72 87 91 87 83 85

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 93 84 83 49 83 87 88 82 86

6 to 20 percent .................. 91 83 80 64 81 86 88 87 83

21 to 49 percent................ 93 77 86 66 84 87 82 84 91

50 percent or more............ 91 82 81 69 84 88 85 81 83

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 93 81 82 57 85 87 87 85 85

35 to 49 percent................ 95 81 84 65 87 92 88 88 91

50 to 74 percent................ 91 83 84 70 81 85 83 82 88

75 percent or more............ 90 84 81 63 78 85 83 77 83

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 99 percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings. Detail for percent minority 

enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. For heating, air conditioning, and natural lighting, respondents 

could indicate that the environmental factor was not applicable. Seventeen percent did not have air conditioning, 3 percent did not have natural 

lighting, and 1 percent did not have heating. Such responses could indicate either the lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here are 

based on all responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
45 

Table 10-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors are very satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in 

permanent buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

All public schools............. 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.0

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.2

Secondary/combined ........ 1.1 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.1

350 to 699......................... 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1

700 or more ...................... 1.2 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.7

 

School locale 

City ................................... 2.1 2.6 3.6 3.9 2.6 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.7

Urban fringe/large town ... 1.8 2.3 2.6 3.3 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.3 1.9

Small town/rural............... 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.7

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 3.0 3.2 3.4 4.2 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.8 2.7

Southeast .......................... 1.3 3.3 3.2 3.7 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.8 1.7

Central .............................. 2.1 2.5 2.8 4.1 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.8

West.................................. 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.7 2.4 2.2

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 2.0 2.9 2.8 3.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7

6 to 20 percent .................. 2.6 3.3 3.4 4.0 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.9

21 to 49 percent................ 2.2 3.3 3.2 4.1 2.6 2.6 3.3 2.9 2.1

50 percent or more............ 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.5 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.4

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 1.6 2.5 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.9

35 to 49 percent................ 2.1 3.2 3.6 5.3 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.6

50 to 74 percent................ 1.9 2.6 2.8 3.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.4

75 percent or more............ 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.4 2.7 2.4 3.1 2.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
46 

Table 11. Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or unsatisfactory 

various environmental factors are in classrooms located in portable (temporary) 

buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor 

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very 

unsatisfactory 

Not 

applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 25 66 7 2 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 19 53 21 4 4

Heating ..................................................................... 25 64 9 1 1

Air conditioning ....................................................... 26 57 11 2 3

Ventilation................................................................ 19 62 16 3 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 17 65 16 2 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 19 58 20 3 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 20 55 22 3 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 19 60 18 3 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. Detail may not sum to 

totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
47 

Table 11-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory various environmental factors are in classrooms located 

in portable (temporary) buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor 

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very 

unsatisfactory 

Not 

applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 2.4 2.6 1.5 0.7 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 2.4 2.9 2.4 1.1 1.0

Heating ..................................................................... 2.4 2.5 1.7 0.6 0.7

Air conditioning ....................................................... 2.5 2.7 2.1 0.8 1.3

Ventilation................................................................ 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.9 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 2.3 2.7 2.2 0.9 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 2.3 3.2 2.5 0.8 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 2.4 3.4 2.7 1.0 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 2.7 3.0 2.4 0.9 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
48 

Table 12. Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors are very 

satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

All public schools............. 91 72 89 84 81 82 77 74 79

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 91 71 88 83 81 82 76 73 78

Secondary/combined ........ 89 74 91 87 81 84 83 79 80

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 89 71 85 76 77 78 72 71 78

350 to 699......................... 94 76 92 87 81 83 77 79 77

700 or more ...................... 89 67 88 84 84 83 80 72 81

 

School locale 

City ................................... 93 67 92 83 79 81 76 70 76

Urban fringe/large town ... 92 76 85 85 80 83 83 75 83

Small town/rural............... 88 72 89 82 83 82 71 79 77

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 91 84 86 72 82 89 75 75 76

Southeast .......................... 91 69 89 88 82 77 69 68 75

Central .............................. 90 71 82 79 70 79 81 62 65

West.................................. 91 71 90 84 83 84 80 80 84

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 90 69 89 85 81 84 65 69 78

6 to 20 percent .................. 93 82 94 89 87 89 76 82 84

21 to 49 percent................ 94 67 92 88 88 86 82 78 80

50 percent or more............ 89 71 83 77 74 76 79 70 76

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 91 80 90 84 85 88 82 81 86

35 to 49 percent................ 99 69 94 87 91 89 83 80 78

50 to 74 percent................ 91 66 85 88 77 75 72 75 81

75 percent or more............ 86 69 87 77 74 77 73 62 68

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. Detail for percent 

minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. For heating, air conditioning, and natural lighting, 

respondents could indicate that the environmental factor was not applicable. Four percent did not have natural lighting, 3 percent did not have air 

conditioning, and 1 percent did not have heating. Such responses could indicate either the lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics 

here are based on all responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
49 

Table 12-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors are very satisfactory or satisfactory in classrooms located in 

portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

 All public schools.......... 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.2

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 2.0 3.4 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.7

Secondary/combined ........ 2.5 3.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.6

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 4.4 5.9 5.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.9 5.9 4.5

350 to 699......................... 2.6 4.7 2.7 2.9 3.8 4.0 4.8 4.9 4.7

700 or more ...................... 2.8 3.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.3 3.1

 

School locale 

City ................................... 2.4 4.2 2.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 5.1 4.9 3.8

Urban fringe/large town ... 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.7 4.5 3.4

Small town/rural............... 3.6 5.9 3.6 4.8 5.2 5.0 4.1 4.6 4.1

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 5.8 7.4 7.1 8.6 7.0 5.8 9.9 9.3 8.0

Southeast .......................... 3.4 5.8 2.8 3.0 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.7

Central .............................. 6.2 8.8 7.9 7.9 8.5 7.3 5.9 8.9 8.7

West.................................. 2.1 3.9 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.7 2.6

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 6.4 9.0 6.4 7.7 8.0 7.1 7.7 8.7 7.4

6 to 20 percent .................. 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.5 4.1 3.9 6.8 6.4 5.9

21 to 49 percent................ 2.6 5.8 3.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.7 5.8

50 percent or more............ 2.6 4.0 3.2 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.1 4.3 3.4

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 3.5 4.4 3.2 3.9 4.0 3.6 4.3 4.7 4.2

35 to 49 percent................ 0.9 7.8 3.5 5.1 4.1 4.3 7.7 6.8 8.0

50 to 74 percent................ 3.6 4.9 4.3 4.2 5.7 4.9 5.5 5.8 4.9

75 percent or more............ 3.8 5.4 3.5 4.6 4.9 4.5 4.3 5.7 5.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
50 

Table 13. Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent to which various 

environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in permanent buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent Not applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 76 18 5 1 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 73 18 5 1 3

Heating ..................................................................... 63 24 10 3 1

Air conditioning ....................................................... 46 21 10 6 17

Ventilation................................................................ 66 22 8 3 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 69 21 7 3 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 61 27 9 3 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 71 19 8 3 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 64 23 9 4 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 99 percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
51 

Table 13-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent 

to which various environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to 

deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent Not applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.4 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.6

Heating ..................................................................... 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.4

Air conditioning ....................................................... 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.6

Ventilation................................................................ 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.7 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.6 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.7 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
52 

Table 14. Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfere to a 

moderate or major extent with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in permanent buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

 All public schools.......... 6 6 12 16 12 9 12 10 13

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 6 5 12 16 11 9 12 10 13

Secondary/combined ........ 5 7 13 17 12 9 12 12 13

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 5 6 14 16 11 8 12 10 14

350 to 699......................... 6 6 11 16 12 11 13 11 12

700 or more ...................... 6 4 12 17 12 9 12 10 13

 

School locale 

City ................................... 6 4 16 16 12 10 16 11 15

Urban fringe/large town ... 6 6 13 17 12 11 9 8 12

Small town/rural............... 6 6 10 15 11 8 13 12 12

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 6 4 17 21 17 15 9 9 10

Southeast .......................... 5 4 10 16 10 9 14 10 7

Central .............................. 6 7 11 18 14 9 13 8 15

West.................................. 6 7 12 11 7 7 13 14 16

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 5 7 13 16 11 5 10 8 13

6 to 20 percent .................. 6 5 13 18 13 11 10 10 15

21 to 49 percent................ 4 5 10 18 12 10 14 11 10

50 percent or more............ 8 5 14 14 12 10 15 12 14

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 4 6 13 19 12 10 8 9 14

35 to 49 percent................ 5 4 9 11 10 6 10 7 8

50 to 74 percent................ 8 8 12 15 12 10 20 14 14

75 percent or more............ 8 4 14 16 13 10 14 13 12

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 99 percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings. These data may differ from 

those in table 13 due to rounding. Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. For 

heating, air conditioning, and natural lighting, respondents could indicate that the environmental factor was not applicable. Seventeen percent did 

not have air conditioning, 3 percent did not have natural lighting, and 1 percent did not have heating. Such responses could indicate either the 

lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here are based on all responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
53 

Table 14-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors interfere to a moderate or major extent with the ability of the 

school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent buildings, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of

rooms

 

 All public schools.......... 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1

 

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 1.1 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4

Secondary/combined ........ 1.0 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 2.0 1.6 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.3

350 to 699......................... 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.0

700 or more ...................... 1.4 0.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7

 

School locale 

City ................................... 1.7 1.4 2.4 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.8

Urban fringe/large town ... 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.6

Small town/rural............... 1.5 1.3 1.9 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7

 

Region 

Northeast .......................... 2.3 1.8 2.8 4.0 3.3 3.5 2.3 2.0 2.5

Southeast .......................... 1.6 1.6 2.3 3.3 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.8 1.9

Central .............................. 1.7 1.7 2.6 3.4 3.0 2.1 2.7 1.8 2.7

West.................................. 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 2.4

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.6

6 to 20 percent .................. 1.9 1.6 2.3 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 3.0

21 to 49 percent................ 1.9 1.9 2.3 4.0 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.2

50 percent or more............ 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.2

 

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.8 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.9

35 to 49 percent................ 2.7 1.8 2.4 3.2 3.4 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5

50 to 74 percent................ 2.0 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.3 3.1 2.9

75 percent or more............ 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
54 

Table 15. Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent to which various 

environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent Not applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 68 25 5 3 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 62 26 7 1 4

Heating ..................................................................... 66 23 7 2 1

Air conditioning ....................................................... 63 22 7 4 3

Ventilation................................................................ 62 24 11 3 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 62 26 10 2 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 56 26 14 4 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 60 26 11 3 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 58 26 11 5 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. Detail may not sum to 

totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
55 

Table 15-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the extent 

to which various environmental factors interfere with the ability of the school to 

deliver instruction in classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings: Fall 2005 

Environmental factor Not at all Minor extent Moderate extent Major extent Not applicable

Artificial lighting...................................................... 3.1 2.9 1.3 1.1 —

Natural lighting ........................................................ 2.7 2.6 1.7 0.7 1.0

Heating ..................................................................... 3.0 3.0 1.6 0.8 0.7

Air conditioning ....................................................... 3.1 2.4 1.7 1.1 1.3

Ventilation................................................................ 3.1 2.8 1.8 0.9 —

Indoor air quality...................................................... 3.1 2.8 1.9 0.8 —

Acoustics or noise control........................................ 2.9 2.9 2.1 1.2 —

Physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, 

windows, doors..................................................... 2.8 2.9 1.8 1.0 —

Size or configuration of rooms................................. 3.7 3.3 1.8 1.3 —

— Not available as a questionnaire response. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
56 

Table 16. Percent of public schools indicating that various environmental factors interfere to a 

moderate or major extent with the ability of the school to deliver instruction in 

classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: 

Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

 All public schools.......... 8 9 9 11 14 12 18 13 16

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 8 9 9 11 14 11 18 14 16

Secondary/combined ........ 5 9 9 11 12 13 15 13 16

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 11 11 11 15 20 12 23 15 15

350 to 699......................... 3 5 6 6 8 9 14 12 16

700 or more ...................... 10 12 12 14 16 14 19 15 18

School locale 

City ................................... 9 9 10 11 15 13 18 17 17

Urban fringe/large town ... 4 7 12 9 12 8 12 10 14

Small town/rural............... 10 10 6 13 15 14 24 14 19

Region 

Northeast .......................... 11 6 21 17 19 17 23 8 25

Southeast .......................... 7 11 6 12 14 17 26 17 21

Central .............................. 15 18 15 13 24 18 22 20 23

West.................................. 6 7 7 9 11 7 12 11 11

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 8 13 11 11 18 15 24 14 21

6 to 20 percent .................. 5 8 7 8 12 10 11 11 8

21 to 49 percent................ 1 4 7 3 6 6 14 7 13

50 percent or more............ 11 10 12 16 18 12 19 17 21

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 5 7 9 8 10 8 12 10 9

35 to 49 percent................ # 2 7 10 8 7 8 3 15

50 to 74 percent................ 12 14 10 14 19 16 25 18 16

75 percent or more............ 11 11 10 13 17 14 24 20 26

#Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Data in this table are based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. These data may differ 

from those in table 15 due to rounding. Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. 

For heating, air conditioning, and natural lighting, respondents could indicate that the environmental factor was not applicable. Four percent did 

not have natural lighting, 3 percent did not have air conditioning, and 1 percent did not have heating. Such responses could indicate either the 

lack of a need or an unfulfilled need. The statistics here are based on all responses, not just those expressing an opinion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
57 

Table 16-A. Standard errors for the percent of public schools indicating that various 

environmental factors interfere to a moderate or major extent with the ability of the 

school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic 

Artificial 

lighting 

Natural 

lighting Heating

Air conditioning VentilationIndoor air 

quality

Acoustics 

or noise 

control 

Physical 

condition 

of ceilings, 

floors, 

walls, 

windows, 

doors

Size or 

configuration of 

rooms

 

 All public schools.......... 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.2

Instructional level 

Elementary........................ 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.4

Secondary/combined ........ 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.9

Enrollment size 

Less than 350.................... 4.5 4.2 4.5 5.3 5.8 4.2 4.8 5.1 4.9

350 to 699......................... 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.4

700 or more ...................... 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4 2.9 3.2

School locale 

City ................................... 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.9

Urban fringe/large town ... 1.8 2.0 2.9 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.2

Small town/rural............... 3.5 4.4 3.1 4.2 4.1 4.4 5.0 4.1 4.0

Region 

Northeast .......................... 5.9 4.1 7.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 8.1 5.0 8.8

Southeast .......................... 3.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.2 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.1

Central .............................. 7.1 7.1 7.2 6.3 8.0 7.1 7.2 7.8 6.5

West.................................. 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.6

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent........... 5.7 6.4 6.5 6.5 7.9 6.6 7.9 6.7 7.5

6 to 20 percent .................. 3.4 3.7 2.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.3 3.1

21 to 49 percent................ 0.6 2.0 3.4 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.7 2.9 4.5

50 percent or more............ 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.7 3.1 2.7 3.5 3.4 3.8

Percent of students eligible 

 for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent......... 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.8 3.2 3.2

35 to 49 percent................ † 2.3 3.7 4.5 3.7 3.5 3.8 2.0 5.5

50 to 74 percent................ 4.3 4.5 3.5 4.6 5.0 4.6 5.1 4.5 4.6

75 percent or more............ 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.4 4.3 3.9 5.0

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
58 

Table 17. Percentage distributions of public schools indicating the extent to which the 

environmental factors, taken together, interfere with the ability of the school to deliver 

instruction in classrooms located in permanent and in portable (temporary) buildings, 

by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Classrooms in permanent buildings1 Classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings2 

School characteristic 

Not 

at all 

Minor 

extent

Moderate 

extent

Major 

extent

Not 

at all

Minor 

extent 

Moderate 

extent

Major 

extent

 

 All public schools............... 56 33 9 1 55 30 13 2

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 56 34 9 1 55 31 12 2

Secondary/combined ............. 58 30 10 2 58 27 14 1

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 55 34 10 1 58 19 21 1

350 to 699.............................. 56 33 10 1 56 34 10 #

700 or more ........................... 59 32 7 2 53 32 10 5

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 54 34 10 1 51 33 14 2

Urban fringe/large town ........ 57 34 8 1 57 31 9 3

Small town/rural.................... 58 32 9 1 58 26 15 1

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 52 36 12 # 51 32 13 4

Southeast ............................... 62 30 6 2 48 36 13 3

Central ................................... 53 35 10 2 48 25 28 #

West....................................... 59 32 8 1 61 28 9 2

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 56 35 9 # 59 19 22 #

6 to 20 percent ....................... 58 28 13 1 64 25 11 #

21 to 49 percent..................... 51 41 7 1 51 41 7 #

50 percent or more................. 58 32 8 2 52 30 13 5

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 57 32 10 1 61 27 13 #

35 to 49 percent..................... 62 32 6 # 58 34 7 1 

50 to 74 percent..................... 51 38 10 1 54 30 13 4

75 percent or more................. 57 32 8 3 49 32 16 3

#Rounds to zero. 

1

Data based on the 99 percent of public schools with classrooms in permanent buildings. 

2

Data based on the 33 percent of public schools with classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
59 

Table 17-A. Standard errors for the percentage distributions of public schools indicating the 

extent to which the environmental factors, taken together, interfere with the ability of 

the school to deliver instruction in classrooms located in permanent and in portable 

(temporary) buildings, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

Classrooms in permanent buildings Classrooms in portable (temporary) buildings

School characteristic 

Not 

at all 

Minor 

extent

Moderate 

extent

Major 

extent

Not 

at all

Minor 

extent 

Moderate 

extent

Major 

extent

 

 All public schools............... 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.4 3.3 3.1 2.1 0.8

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................. 1.9 1.7 1.3 0.4 3.7 3.6 2.4 1.0

Secondary/combined ............. 2.7 2.4 1.4 0.7 4.3 3.5 2.6 0.8

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................... 2.8 2.8 2.0 0.4 6.8 5.4 6.0 1.4

350 to 699.............................. 3.1 2.6 1.8 0.6 5.7 5.8 3.0 †

700 or more ........................... 2.9 2.7 1.2 0.7 4.3 3.8 2.7 1.9

 

School locale 

City ........................................ 3.8 3.6 2.2 0.7 5.2 5.0 3.9 1.2

Urban fringe/large town ........ 3.2 3.2 1.7 0.5 5.2 4.5 2.7 1.6

Small town/rural.................... 2.8 2.0 1.7 0.6 5.8 5.6 4.2 1.1

 

Region 

Northeast ............................... 4.6 4.0 3.0 † 11.4 11.5 6.5 3.9

Southeast ............................... 4.0 3.3 2.0 0.9 6.9 5.6 4.4 1.9

Central ................................... 4.1 3.2 2.5 1.0 9.1 8.0 8.3 †

West....................................... 3.1 3.0 2.0 0.4 3.5 3.6 2.1 1.0

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................ 3.5 2.8 2.1 † 9.0 6.8 8.9 †

6 to 20 percent ....................... 3.5 3.1 2.6 0.8 6.3 6.1 4.0 †

21 to 49 percent..................... 4.0 4.1 2.5 0.4 8.2 8.1 3.5 †

50 percent or more................. 2.9 2.6 1.7 0.8 4.3 4.4 3.1 1.8

 

Percent of students eligible for 

 free or reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............. 2.7 2.8 1.9 0.6 6.1 4.7 3.6 †

35 to 49 percent..................... 4.4 4.2 2.3 † 9.3 8.5 3.7 0.9

50 to 74 percent..................... 3.6 2.9 2.5 0.5 6.4 6.5 4.4 2.4

75 percent or more................. 3.2 3.1 2.0 1.0 5.6 5.5 4.5 1.9

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
60 

Table 18. Percentage distribution of public schools indicating how satisfactory or unsatisfactory 

the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms are at the school, by school 

characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory

 All public schools............................................... 42 50 7 1

Instructional level 

Elementary............................................................. 45 47 7 1

Secondary/combined ............................................. 33 57 8 2

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................................................... 42 52 4 2

350 to 699.............................................................. 47 44 8 1

700 or more ........................................................... 35 56 9 #

School locale 

City ........................................................................ 37 51 10 2

Urban fringe/large town ........................................ 45 48 6 1

Small town/rural.................................................... 43 50 6 2

Region 

Northeast ............................................................... 41 52 7 1

Southeast ............................................................... 39 49 10 2

Central ................................................................... 45 48 5 2

West....................................................................... 41 51 6 2

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................................................ 44 51 3 1

6 to 20 percent ....................................................... 50 44 5 1

21 to 49 percent..................................................... 42 51 6 2

50 percent or more................................................. 33 54 11 2

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............................................. 47 47 5 1

35 to 49 percent..................................................... 47 49 4 #

50 to 74 percent..................................................... 40 49 10 2

75 percent or more................................................. 31 56 11 2

#Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Detail for percent minority enrollment excludes roughly 2,300 schools with missing data for that variable. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

 
61 

Table 18-A. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools indicating how 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms 

are at the school, by school characteristics: Fall 2005 

School characteristic Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory

 All public schools............................................... 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.4

 

Instructional level 

Elementary............................................................. 2.3 2.2 1.1 0.5

Secondary/combined ............................................. 2.3 2.4 1.1 0.8

 

Enrollment size 

Less than 350......................................................... 3.2 3.1 1.1 0.9

350 to 699.............................................................. 3.2 3.2 1.5 0.6

700 or more ........................................................... 3.6 3.5 1.9 †

 

School locale 

City ........................................................................ 3.6 3.6 2.4 1.0

Urban fringe/large town ........................................ 3.0 2.7 1.3 0.3

Small town/rural.................................................... 2.3 2.6 1.3 0.7

 

Region 

Northeast ............................................................... 4.2 4.3 2.3 0.5

Southeast ............................................................... 3.5 3.5 2.3 0.8

Central ................................................................... 3.4 3.4 1.4 0.9

West....................................................................... 3.0 3.1 1.4 0.8

 

Percent minority enrollment 

Less than 6 percent................................................ 3.9 3.9 1.2 0.8

6 to 20 percent ....................................................... 3.3 3.6 1.9 0.8

21 to 49 percent..................................................... 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.0

50 percent or more................................................. 3.6 3.2 1.9 0.8

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

 lunch 

Less than 35 percent.............................................. 2.7 2.8 1.1 0.7

35 to 49 percent..................................................... 3.3 3.5 1.6 †

50 to 74 percent..................................................... 3.8 3.6 2.1 0.9

75 percent or more................................................. 4.5 4.3 2.5 1.0

†Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
62 

Table 19. Estimates and standard errors for data in figures and data not shown in tables: Fall 

2005 

Item Estimate Standard error

Figure 1. Percentage of public schools reporting that they were underenrolled, at capacity, 

or overenrolled in 1999 and 2005, and percentage of students at such schools in 2005 

Students in 2005 

Underenrolled by more than 25%............................................................................................. 12 0.9

Underenrolled by 6–25% .......................................................................................................... 34 1.5

Enrollment within 5% of capacity ............................................................................................ 24 1.6

Overenrolled by 6–25% ............................................................................................................ 15 1.3

Overenrolled by more than 25%............................................................................................... 15 1.4

Schools in 1999 

Underenrolled by more than 25%............................................................................................. 19 1.5

Underenrolled by 6–25% .......................................................................................................... 33 1.7

Enrollment within 5% of capacity ............................................................................................ 26 1.5

Overenrolled by 6–25% ............................................................................................................ 14 1.2

Overenrolled by more than 25%............................................................................................... 8 0.9

Figure 2. Percentage of public schools with and without portables, by overenrollment 

status: Fall 2005 

Have portables and overenrolled................................................................................................... 18 1.3

Have portables and not overenrolled............................................................................................. 19 1.7

No portables and overenrolled....................................................................................................... 4 0.5

No portables and not overenrolled ................................................................................................ 59 2.0

Figure 6. Percentage of schools indicating various numbers of environmental factors 

interfered with the ability of the school to deliver instruction to a moderate or major 

extent, by type of building: Fall 2005 

Permanent buildings 

None .......................................................................................................................................... 68 1.7

1 ................................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1

2 or 3.......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2

4 or more ................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2

Portable buildings 

None .......................................................................................................................................... 65 2.7

1 ................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.0

2 or 3.......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.6

4 or more ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.0

Section: The Capacity of School Buildings 

Subsection: Extent of Match Between Enrollment and Building Capacity 

Percentage of schools with enrollment exceeding capacity by 5 percent or less that were 

considered overcrowded....................................................................................................... 52 8.7

Percentage of schools with enrollment exceeding capacity by more than 5 percent that were 

considered overcrowded....................................................................................................... 74 3.9

Percentage of schools using two or more approaches to overcrowding................................... 79 4.5

Percentage of schools using three or more approaches to overcrowding................................. 36 3.5

NOTE: Standard errors that are shown in other tables are not repeated here. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 
A-1 

Appendix A 

Technical Notes 
A-2 

This page intentionally left blank.
A-3 

Technical Notes 

Fast Response Survey System 

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issueoriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local 

education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and 

public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three 

pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are 

relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be 

completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. 

The sample size permits limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of 

categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which 

results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. 

FRSS previously conducted a survey on school facilities in 1999 (FRSS 73; Condition of 

America’s Public School Facilities: 1999). The questions asking for data on enrollment and school 

capacity in this study were similar to those in 1999, and the data for both years are compared in this 

report. Except for these questions, however, the studies differed too greatly to provide comparable data. 

That is, they differed in terms of personnel being surveyed (the current survey is of principals, while the 

previous survey was of district personnel—often a facilities coordinator), in the differentiation between 

permanent and portable buildings when evaluating the rooms (the previous survey did not make that 

distinction), in the types of information requested and the types of rooms covered, and in the rating scales 

used. 

Sample Design 

The sample for the FRSS survey on principals’ perceptions of their school facilities 

consisted of 1,205 regular public elementary and secondary/combined schools in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. It was selected from the 2002–03 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public 

School Universe file, which was the most current file available at the time of selection. The sampling 

frame included about 84,000 regular schools, of which about 63,000 were elementary schools, and about 

21,000 were secondary/combined schools. Excluded from the sampling frame were the 15 percent of 
A-4 

CCD schools with a high grade of prekindergarten or kindergarten and ungraded schools, along with 

special education, vocational, and alternative/other schools, schools outside the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia, and schools with zero or missing enrollment. 

The public school sampling frame was stratified by instructional level (elementary, 

secondary/combined), enrollment size (less than 300, 300 to 499, 500 to 599, 600 to 749, and 750 or more 

for elementary schools; less than 300, 300 to 499, 500 to 999, 1,000 to 1,499, and 1,500 or more for 

secondary/combined schools), and percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (less than 35 percent, 

35 to 49 percent, 50 to 74 percent, and 75 percent or more). Schools in the frame were then sorted by 

type of locale (city, urban fringe, town, and rural) and region (Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West) to 

induce additional implicit stratification. These variables are defined in more detail in the “Definitions of 

Analysis Variables” section of these Technical Notes. 

Data Collection and Response Rates 

Questionnaires and cover letters for the study were mailed to the principal of each sampled 

school in mid-September 2005. The letter introduced the study and requested that the questionnaire be 

completed only by the principal of the school listed on the label. Respondents were also offered the 

option of completing the survey via the Web. The cover letter for the study included information on how 

to access the survey on the Web, including the survey Uniform Resource Location (URL) and the user 

login and password. Telephone follow-up for survey nonresponse and data clarification was initiated in 

early October 2005 and completed in late January 2006. 

Of the 1,205 schools in the sample, 47 were found to be ineligible for the survey, primarily 

because they were closed or merged. This left a total of 1,158 eligible schools in the sample. Completed 

questionnaires were received from 1,045 schools, or 90 percent of the eligible schools (table A-1). Of the 

schools that completed the survey, 18 percent completed it by Web, 47 percent completed it by mail, 9 

percent completed it by fax, and 27 percent completed it by telephone. 

The weighted response rate was 91 percent. The weighted number of eligible institutions in 

the survey represents the estimated universe of regular elementary and secondary/combined schools in the 

50 states and the District of Columbia. The estimated number of schools in the survey universe decreased 

from the approximately 84,000 schools in the CCD sampling frame to an estimated 81,000 because some 

of the schools were determined to be ineligible for the FRSS survey during data collection. 
A-5 

Table A-1. Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample, and estimated 

number and percent of public schools the sample represents, by school characteristics: 

2005 

Respondent sample (unweighted) National estimate (weighted) 

School characteristic Number Percent Number Percent 

 

 All public schools................................................................... 1,045 100 80,910 100 

 

Instructional level 

 Elementary................................................................................ 530 51 61,590 76 

 Secondary/combined ................................................................ 515 49 19,320 24 

 

Enrollment size

 Less than 350............................................................................ 256 25 27,300 34 

 350 to 699 ................................................................................. 349 33 32,710 40 

 700 or more............................................................................... 440 42 20,900 26 

 

Locale

 City ........................................................................................... 267 26 19,510 24 

 Urban fringe/large town ........................................................... 367 35 27,710 34 

 Small town/rural ....................................................................... 411 39 33,690 42 

 

Region

 Northeast................................................................................... 183 18 14,760 18 

 Southeast................................................................................... 233 22 17,250 21 

 Central ...................................................................................... 282 27 23,010 28 

 West .......................................................................................... 347 33 25,890 32 

 

Percent minority enrollment

 Less than 6 percent ................................................................... 237 23 19,540 24 

 6 to 20 percent .......................................................................... 242 23 20,440 25 

 21 to 49 percent ........................................................................ 215 21 15,760 19 

 50 percent or more.................................................................... 330 32 22,900 28 

 

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

 Less than 35 percent ................................................................. 427 41 32,880 41 

 35 to 49 percent ........................................................................ 175 17 13,400 17 

 50 to 74 percent ........................................................................ 216 21 18,620 23 

 75 percent or more.................................................................... 227 22 16,010 20 

NOTE: Percent minority enrollment was not available for 21 schools. Those schools were included in the totals and in the analyses by other 

school characteristics. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or missing data. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Principals’ 

Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

Imputation for Item Nonresponse 

Although item nonresponse for key items was very low, missing data were imputed for the 

eight items with a response rate of less than 100 percent (table A-2).3

 The missing items included both 

numerical data (the number of students the school is designed to serve), as well as categorical data such as 

 

3

 Per NCES standards, all missing questionnaire data are imputed. 
A-6 

how satisfactory the heating is in classrooms. The missing data were imputed using a “hot-deck” 

approach to obtain a “donor” school from which the imputed values were derived. Under the hot-deck 

approach, a donor school that matched selected characteristics of the school with missing data (the 

recipient school) was identified. The matching characteristics included instructional level, enrollment 

size, and percent of students in the school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. In addition, relevant 

questionnaire items were used to form appropriate imputation groupings. Once a donor was found, it was 

used to obtain the imputed values for the school with missing data. For categorical items, the imputed 

value was simply the corresponding value from the donor school. All missing categorical items for a 

given school were imputed from the same donor. For the numerical item, an appropriate ratio was 

calculated for the imputation class mean, and this ratio was applied to available data for the recipient 

school to obtain the corresponding imputed value. 

Table A-2. Number of schools with imputed data in the study sample, and number of schools with 

imputed data the sample represents, by questionnaire item: 2005

Questionnaire item 

Respondent 

sample

(unweighted)

National 

estimate

(weighted)

q2c Satisfaction with heating in classrooms in permanent buildings.................................... 2 174

q2e Satisfaction with ventilation in classrooms in permanent buildings .............................. 1 127

q2f Satisfaction with indoor air quality in classrooms in permanent buildings.................... 1 34

q2h Satisfaction with physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, windows, doors in 

classrooms in permanent buildings ................................................................................ 1 127

q3c Extent that heating interferes with instruction in classrooms in permanent buildings ... 2 174

q3h Extent that physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, windows, doors interferes 

with instruction in classrooms in permanent buildings.................................................. 1 112

q7f Satisfaction with indoor air quality in classrooms in portable buildings........................ 1 27

q14 Number of students the school is currently designed to serve........................................ 1 29

NOTE: Data were imputed using hot-deck imputation procedures. The statistics in both columns represent the number of schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Public School 

Principals’ Perceptions of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,” FRSS 88, 2005. 

Data Reliability 

While the survey on principals’ perceptions of their school facilities was designed to account 

for sampling error and to minimize nonsampling error, estimates produced from the data collected are 

subject to both types of error. Sampling error occurs because the data are collected from a sample rather 

than a census of the population, and nonsampling errors are errors made during the collection and 

processing of the data. 
A-7 

 Sampling Errors 

The responses were weighted to produce national estimates (table A-1). The weights were 

designed to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and differential nonresponse. The findings in 

this report are estimates based on the sample selected and, consequently, are subject to sampling 

variability. General sampling theory was used to estimate the sampling variability of the estimates and to 

test for statistically significant differences between estimates. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability of an estimate due to sampling. It indicates 

the variability of a sample estimate that would be obtained from all possible samples of a given design 

and size. Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. If all 

possible samples were surveyed under similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 

standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true population parameter being estimated in 

about 95 percent of the samples, assuming a standard normal distribution. This is a 95 percent confidence 

interval. For example, the estimated percentage of public schools that have portable (temporary) 

buildings is 37.1 percent, and the standard error is 1.9 percent (tables 3 and 3a). The 95 percent 

confidence interval for the statistic extends from [37.1 – (1.9 x 1.96)] to [37.1 + (1.9 x 1.96)], or from 

33.4 to 40.8 percent. 

Because the data from the FRSS survey on principals’ perceptions of their school facilities 

were collected using a complex sampling design, the variances of the estimates from this survey (e.g., 

estimates of proportions) are typically different from what would be expected from data collected with a 

simple random sample. Not taking the complex sample design into account can lead to an 

underestimation of the standard errors associated with such estimates. To generate accurate standard 

errors for the estimates in this report, standard errors were computed using a technique known as 

jackknife replication. As with any replication method, jackknife replication involves constructing a 

number of subsamples (replicates) from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for each 

replicate. The mean square error of the replicate estimates around the full sample estimate provides an 

estimate of the variance of the statistic. To construct the replications, 50 stratified subsamples of the full 

sample were created and then dropped 1 at a time to define 50 jackknife replicates. The replicates were 

incorporated into a specialized computer program (WesVar) to calculate the estimates of standard errors. 
A-8 

 Nonsampling Errors 

Nonsampling error is the term used to describe variations in the estimates that may be caused 

by population coverage limitations and data collection, processing, and reporting procedures. The 

sources of nonsampling errors are typically problems like unit and item nonresponse, differences in 

respondents’ interpretations of the meaning of questions, response differences related to the particular 

time the survey was conducted, and mistakes made during data preparation. It is difficult to identify and 

estimate either the amount of nonsampling error or the bias caused by this error. To minimize the 

potential for nonsampling error, this study used a variety of procedures, including a pretest of the 

questionnaire with principals of elementary and secondary schools. The pretest provided the opportunity 

to check for consistency of interpretation of questions and definitions and to eliminate ambiguous items. 

The questionnaire and instructions were also extensively reviewed by NCES. In addition, manual and 

machine editing of the questionnaire responses were conducted to check the data for accuracy and 

consistency. Cases with missing or inconsistent items were recontacted by telephone to resolve problems. 

Data were keyed with 100 percent verification for surveys received by mail, fax, or telephone. 

Definitions of Analysis Variables 

Many of the school characteristics, described below, may be related to each other. For 

example, school enrollment size and locale are related, with city schools typically being larger than small 

town or rural schools. Other relationships between these analysis variables may exist. However, this 

report focuses on bivariate relationships between the analysis variables and questionnaire variables rather 

than more complex analyses. 

Instructional Level—Schools were classified according to their grade span in the 2002–03 Common 

Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe File. Secondary and combined 

schools were grouped together for both sampling and analysis. Data are reported for the following 

categories: 

Elementary school—Had grade 6 or lower and no grade higher than grade 8. 

Secondary/combined school—All other schools. 

Enrollment Size—This variable indicates the total number of students enrolled in the school based on 

data from the 2002–03 CCD. The variable was collapsed into the following three categories: 

Less than 350 students (small)

350 to 699 students (medium)

700 or more students (large) 
A-9 

School Locale—This variable indicates the type of community in which the school is located, as defined 

in the 2002–03 CCD (which uses definitions based on U.S. Census Bureau classifications). This variable 

was based on the eight-category locale variable from CCD, recoded into a three-category analysis 

variable for this report. Large and midsize cities were coded as city, the urban fringes of large and 

midsize cities and large towns were coded as urban fringe/large town, and small towns and rural areas 

were coded as small town/rural. The categories are described in more detail below. 

City – A large or midsize central city of a Metropolitan Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). 

Urban fringe/large town – Any incorporated place, Census-designated place, or non-place 

territory within a CBSA of a large or midsize city, and defined as urban by the Census Bureau, and 

an incorporated place or Census-designated place with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 

and located outside a Metropolitan CBSA. 

Small town/rural – An incorporated place or Census-designated place with a population less than 

25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a Metropolitan CBSA, and any 

incorporated place, Census-designated place, or non-place territory defined as rural by the Census 

Bureau. 

Region—This variable classifies schools into one of the four geographic regions used by the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, and the National Education Association. Data were obtained from the 2002–03 CCD School 

Universe file. The geographic regions are: 

Northeast – Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont 

Southeast – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia 

Central – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin 

 

West – Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming 

Percent Minority Enrollment—This variable indicates the percentage of students enrolled in the school 

whose race or ethnicity is classified as one of the following: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or 

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic, based on data in the 2002–03 CCD School Universe 

file. Data on this variable were missing for 21 schools; schools with missing data were excluded from all 

analyses by percent minority enrollment. The percent minority enrollment variable was collapsed into the 

following four categories: 

Less than 6 percent minority 

6 to 20 percent minority 

21 to 49 percent minority

50 percent or more minority 
A-10 

Percent of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch—This variable was based on responses 

to question 22 on the survey questionnaire. This item served as a measurement of the concentration of 

poverty at the school. The categories are: 

Less than 35 percent

35 to 49 percent

50 to 74 percent

75 percent or more

Contact Information 

For more information about the survey, contact Bernie Greene, Early Childhood, International, and 

Crosscutting Studies Division, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, 

e-mail: Bernard.Greene@ed.gov; telephone (202) 502-7348. 
B-1 

Appendix B 

Questionnaire 
B-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
B-3 

Information Copy

-

Do Not Complete

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FORM APPROVED 

 NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS O.M.B. No.: 1850–0733 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-5651 EXPIRATION DATE: 09/2006 

Public School Principals’ Perceptions 

 of Their School Facilities: Fall 2005

 FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM 

This survey is authorized by law (P.L. 103-382). While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is needed to make the results of 

this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

This survey is designed to be completed by the principal of the school listed 

below with regard to this school’s facilities in fall 2005. Please do not give the 

survey to anyone else to complete. 

IF ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE MAKE CORRECTIONS DIRECTLY ON LABEL. 

Name of person completing form:______________________________________ Telephone: _______________________________ 

Title/position:______________________________________________________ E-mail: __________________________________ 

Best days and times to reach you (in case of questions): ______________________________________________________________ 

THANK YOU. PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THE COMPLETED SURVEY FOR YOUR FILES. 

 PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT: 

 WESTAT Laurie Lewis 

 Attention: Lewis 8096.04.03 800-937-8281, ext. 8284 

 1650 Research Boulevard Fax: 800-254-0984 

 Rockville, Maryland 20850 E-mail: laurielewis@westat.com 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information is 1850–0733. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated 

to average 15 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and 

review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, 

please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202–4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your 

individual submission of this form, write directly to: National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 

FRSS Form No. 88, 09/2005 
B-4

Information Copy

-

Do Not Complete

For questions 2, 3, 7, and 8, if your school does not have natural lighting, heating, or air conditioning, 

circle “0” for not applicable for that factor. 

1. Does your school have any classrooms located in permanent buildings? 

Yes ...................... 1 (Continue with question 2.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 5.) 

2. In general, how satisfactory or unsatisfactory are the following factors in classrooms located in permanent buildings 

in your school? (Circle one on each line.)

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 

Very 

unsatisfactory

Not 

applicable 

a. Artificial lighting .................................. 1 2 3 4 

b. Natural lighting ................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

c. Heating............................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

d. Air conditioning................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

e. Ventilation .......................................... 1 2 3 4 

f. Indoor air quality................................. 1 2 3 4 

g. Acoustics or noise control .................. 1 2 3 4 

h. Physical condition of ceilings, floors, 

walls, windows, doors ........................ 1 2 3 4 

i. Size or configuration of rooms ........... 1 2 3 4 

3. To what extent do the following factors interfere with the ability of your school to deliver instruction in classrooms 

located in permanent buildings? (Circle one on each line.) 

Not 

at all 

Minor 

extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Major 

extent 

Not 

applicable 

a. Artificial lighting .................................. 1 2 3 4 

b. Natural lighting ................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

c. Heating............................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

d. Air conditioning................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

e. Ventilation........................................... 1 2 3 4 

f. Indoor air quality................................. 1 2 3 4 

g. Acoustics or noise control .................. 1 2 3 4 

h. Physical condition of ceilings, floors, 

walls, windows, doors ........................ 1 2 3 4 

i. Size or configuration of rooms ........... 1 2 3 4 

4. Taking all the factors in question 3 together, to what extent do they interfere with the ability of your school to deliver 

instruction in classrooms located in permanent buildings? (Circle one.) 

Not at all .................... 1 Minor extent............... 2 Moderate extent......... 3 Major extent............... 4 

5. Does your school have any portable (temporary) buildings? 

Yes ...................... 1 (Continue with question 6.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 12.) 

6. Does your school have any classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings? 

Yes ...................... 1 (Continue with question 7.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 10.) 

7. In general, how satisfactory or unsatisfactory are the following factors in classrooms located in portable (temporary) 

buildings in your school? (Circle one on each line.)

Very 

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 

Very 

unsatisfactory

Not 

applicable 

a. Artificial lighting .................................. 1 2 3 4 

b. Natural lighting ................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

c. Heating............................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

d. Air conditioning................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

e. Ventilation........................................... 1 2 3 4 

f. Indoor air quality................................. 1 2 3 4 

g. Acoustics or noise control .................. 1 2 3 4 

h. Physical condition of ceilings, floors, 

walls, windows, doors ........................ 1 2 3 4 

i. Size or configuration of rooms ........... 1 2 3 4 
B-5

Information Copy

-

Do Not Complete

8. To what extent do the following factors interfere with the ability of your school to deliver instruction in classrooms 

located in portable (temporary) buildings? (Circle one on each line.) 

Not 

at all 

Minor 

extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Major 

extent 

Not 

applicable 

a. Artificial lighting ...................................... 1 2 3 4 

b. Natural lighting ....................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

c. Heating................................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

d. Air conditioning....................................... 1 2 3 4 0 

e. Ventilation............................................... 1 2 3 4 

f. Indoor air quality..................................... 1 2 3 4 

g. Acoustics or noise control ...................... 1 2 3 4 

h. Physical condition of ceilings, floors, 

walls, windows, doors ............................ 1 2 3 4 

i. Size or configuration of rooms ............... 1 2 3 4 

9. Taking all the factors in question 8 together, to what extent do they interfere with the ability of your school to deliver 

instruction in classrooms located in portable (temporary) buildings? (Circle one.) 

Not at all .................... 1 Minor extent............... 2 Moderate extent......... 3 Major extent............... 4 

10. Does your school use portable (temporary) buildings in the following ways? (Circle one on each line.)

 Yes No 

a. General classrooms .............................................................................................................. 1 2 

b. Academic support areas (e.g., ESOL, resource room, skills room)...................................... 1 2 

c. Music room............................................................................................................................ 1 2 

d. Art room................................................................................................................................. 1 2 

e. Computer lab......................................................................................................................... 1 2 

f. Language lab ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 

g. Library media center ............................................................................................................. 1 2 

h. Early childhood programs (e.g., prekindergarten, Head Start) ............................................. 1 2 

i. Day care center for preschool-age children.......................................................................... 1 2 

j. Before- and after-school care for school-age children.......................................................... 1 2 

k. Office/administrative space................................................................................................... 1 2 

l. Teacher work room ............................................................................................................... 1 2 

m. Storage.................................................................................................................................. 1 2 

n. Other (specify) __________________________________________________________ 1 2 

11. Which of the following are reasons for using portable (temporary) buildings at your school? (Circle one on each line.) 

 Yes No 

a. Increase in enrollment........................................................................................................... 1 2 

b. Introduction of all-day kindergarten....................................................................................... 1 2 

c. Introduction of prekindergarten, Head Start, or other early childhood program ................... 1 2 

d. Initiatives to reduce class size .............................................................................................. 1 2 

e. Changes in academic programs/curriculum (e.g., introduction of foreign language) ........... 1 2 

f. Need to add or expand academic support programs (e.g., ESOL, resource room, skills 

development) ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 

g. Need for space for new or expanded technology (e.g., computer lab)................................. 1 2 

h. Need for additional office/administrative space .................................................................... 1 2 

i. Temporary relocation of staff or students due to renovation/replacement of existing 

buildings ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 

j. Other reason (specify) ____________________________________________________ 1 2 
B-6

Information Copy

-

Do Not Complete

12. Indicate in column 1 whether your school has a dedicated room or facility for science, art, music, and physical 

education. If yes, indicate in column 2 the extent to which that dedicated room or facility supports the ability of your 

school to deliver instruction in that subject.

1. Has dedicated 

room or facility 

2. If yes: Extent to which the dedicated room or facility supports 

Dedicated room the ability of your school to deliver instruction in that subject 

or facility Yes No Not at all Minor 

extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Major 

extent 

a. Science lab(s) .......... 1 2 1 2 3 4 

b. Art room(s) ............... 1 2 1 2 3 4 

c. Music room(s) .......... 1 2 1 2 3 4 

d. Gymnasium .............. 1 2 1 2 3 4 

13. In general, how satisfactory or unsatisfactory are the cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms at your 

school? (Circle one.) 

Very satisfactory ....... 1 Satisfactory ............... 2 Unsatisfactory ........... 3 Very unsatisfactory.... 4 

14. How many students is your school currently designed to serve? (Do not include space provided by portables or 

other temporary instructional space.) ___________ students 

If your school consists entirely of portable (temporary) buildings, check here and enter the number of students the 

portable (temporary) buildings are designed to serve on the line above.

15. On September 15, 2005, how many students were enrolled at your school? __________ students 

16. Is the number of students enrolled at your school larger than the number of students your school is designed to 

serve? (Answer yes if the number of students in question 15 is larger than the number in question 14).

Yes...................... 1 (Continue with question 17.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 21.) 

17. Do you consider your school overcrowded? (Exclude any space provided by portables or other temporary 

instructional space.)

Yes...................... 1 (Continue with question 18.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 21.) 

18. If yes to question 17: Is your school using any of the following approaches to deal with the overcrowding? (Circle 

one on each line.) 

 Yes No 

a. Building new permanent buildings or additions to existing buildings.................................... 1 2 

b. Using portable (temporary) classrooms................................................................................ 1 2 

c. Converting non-classroom space into classrooms ............................................................... 1 2 

d. Using off-site instructional facilities ....................................................................................... 1 2 

e. Increasing class sizes .......................................................................................................... 1 2 

f. Other approach (specify) __________________________________________________ 1 2 

19. Do you anticipate that the overcrowding in your school will be substantially reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years? 

Yes...................... 1 (Continue with question 20.) No ....................... 2 (Skip to question 21.) 

20. If yes to question 19: Which of the following are reasons that the overcrowding in your school will be substantially 

reduced or eliminated in the next 3 years? (Circle one on each line.) 

 Yes No 

a. New permanent buildings or additions to existing buildings will be completed .................... 1 2 

b. Construction of new schools nearby will be completed ........................................................ 1 2 

c. School boundary changes with existing schools will be implemented.................................. 1 2 

d. School-age population in this school’s service area is projected to decline ......................... 1 2 

e. Other reason (specify) ____________________________________________________ 1 2 

21. Which of the following grades are taught at your school? (Circle all that apply.)

PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded 

22. What percent of the students in your school are eligible for the federally funded free or reduced-price lunch program? 

(If none, enter “0.”) _________%