NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 2000

Condition of

America’s

Public School

Facilities: 1999

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000-032
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 2000

Condition of

America’s

Public School

Facilities: 1999

Laurie Lewis

Kyle Snow

Elizabeth Farris

Westat

Becky Smerdon

Stephanie Cronen

Jessica Kaplan

American Institutes for Research, in conjunction

with the Education Statistics Services Institute

Bernie Greene

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000-032
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting 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

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

June 2000

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is:

http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Condition of America’s Public

School Facilities: 1999. NCES 2000-032, by Laurie Lewis, Kyle Snow, Elizabeth Farris, Becky Smerdon,

Stephanie Cronen, and Jessica Kaplan. Bernie Greene, project officer. Washington, DC: 2000.

For ordering information on this report, write

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or by calling toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs.

Content Contact:

Bernie Greene

(202) 502-7348
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Over the past decade, the physical condition of

America's public schools has received

considerable attention (e.g., Kozol 1991; Lewis et

al. 1989). For example, a number of lawsuits

challenging school funding for facilities have

drawn attention to the poor conditions that many

students encounter at school [e.g., Roosevelt

Elementary School No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P. 2d

806 (Ariz. 1994)]. Newspaper stories and

research studies describing poor ventilation,

broken plumbing, and overcrowding have raised

concerns about the effects of school facilities on

teaching and learning. More importantly, some

conditions, like sagging roofs or poor air quality,

have raised serious questions about student and

teacher safety.

The physical condition of schools is described in

a series of reports based on a 1994 study

conducted by the United States General

Accounting Office (GAO). In addition, several

studies have reported on school repair and

construction costs, each with a somewhat

different focus. The 1994 GAO study provided

estimates of the cost of repairs, renovations, and

modernizations to put schools into good overall

condition (U.S. GAO 1995a), while a more recent

GAO study reported actual school construction

expenditures for fiscal years 1990 through 1997

(U.S. GAO 2000). Another report included actual

costs of completed school construction projects in

1998 and projected expenditures for new

construction, additions, and renovations for 1999

(Abramson 1999). A report recently released by

the National Education Association (NEA) gave a

cost estimate of the funds needed for various

kinds of school infrastructure (including new

construction) and education technology

(NEA2000).

This report provides national data about the

condition of public schools in 1999 based on a

survey conducted by the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) using its Fast

Response Survey System (FRSS). Specifically,

this report provides information about the

condition of school facilities and the costs to

bring them into good condition; school plans for

repairs, renovations, and replacements; the age of

public schools; and overcrowding and practices

used to address overcrowding. The results

presented in this report are based on questionnaire

data for 903 public elementary and secondary

schools in the United States. The responses were

weighted to produce national estimates that

represent all regular public schools in the United

States. Information about the condition of school

facilities is based on questionnaire rating scales

rather than on physical observation of school

conditions by outside observers.

Key Findings

Estimates of Cost to Put Buildings Into Good

Condition

A major barrier for schools to improve their

facilities is the substantial cost (U.S. GAO

1995a). If schools are unable to obtain the

funding they need to perform maintenance or

construct new buildings when necessary, facilities

problems multiply, which can result not only in

health and safety problems, but also in increased

costs of repairs (Hansen 1992). Results of the

1999 FRSS survey indicate that:

• Three-quarters of schools reported needing to

spend some money on repairs, renovations,

and modernizations to put the school’s onsite

buildings into good overall condition1 (table

 

1

 Schools that reported on the questionnaire that the condition of any

type of onsite school building (original and temporary buildings,

permanent addition) or any building feature (e.g., roofs, plumbing,

electric power) was less than good (i.e., any type of building or

building feature was given a rating of adequate, fair, poor, or

replace) provided information about the cost of the needed repairs,

renovations, and modernizations. This is somewhat different from

the approach used by GAO in 1994, which prevents direct
iv

5). The total amount needed by schools was

estimated to be approximately $127 billion

(see table 23 in appendix B).

• The average dollar amount per school for

schools needing to spend money was about

$2.2 million (see table 23 in appendix B).

The average cost per student of repairs,

renovations, and modernizations to put the

school into good overall condition among the

schools that reported needing to spend money

was $3,800 (table 5).

Types of School Buildings and Overall

Facilities Conditions

Observations of school facilities have appeared in

headlines, speeches, and reports that focus on the

deteriorating environmental and physical

conditions of the nation’s schools. Results of the

1999 FRSS survey confirm that although most

schools are in relatively good condition, many

schools are in less than adequate condition:

• One in four schools reported that at least one

type of onsite building (i.e., original and

temporary buildings, permanent additions)

was in less than adequate condition.2

• Approximately 11 million students were

enrolled in schools reporting at least one type

of onsite building in less than adequate

condition (table 3). Of these students, about

3.5 million attended schools where at least

one type of building was in poor condition or

needed to be replaced because it was nonoperational or showed significantly

substandard performance (see table 23 in

appendix B).

• Eighty-one percent of schools reported that

their original buildings were in adequate or

better condition, 84 percent of those schools

with permanent additions reported them to be

in adequate or better condition, and 81

percent of schools with temporary buildings

 

comparison of the cost estimates between the FRSS and GAO

studies.

2

 This is based on types of onsite buildings, and does not include

building features. It is also based on ratings of less than adequate

condition, which includes the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

reported them to be in adequate or better

condition (table 1). This means that

approximately one in five schools having a

particular type of building reported that these

building types were in less than adequate

condition. This included 4 to 6 percent

reporting buildings in poor condition (defined

as consistent substandard performance), and 1

to 2 percent reporting that buildings needed to

be replaced due to significantly substandard

performance or non-operational condition.

• The condition of original buildings and

temporary structures did not vary significantly by school characteristics3

; however,

the condition of permanent additions varied

by concentration of poverty: schools with the

highest concentration of poverty (defined

here as 70 percent or more of the students

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) were

more likely to report that their permanent

additions were in less than adequate condition

than were schools with 20 to 39 percent or

schools with less than 20 percent of their

students eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch (30 percent versus 13 percent and 8

percent, respectively; table 2).

Condition of Building Features

The 1999 FRSS survey on the condition of public

school facilities also collected information on the

condition of nine different building features:

roofs; framing, floors, and foundations; exterior

walls, finishes, windows, and doors; interior

finishes and trim; plumbing; heating, ventilation

and air conditioning; electric power; electrical

lighting; and life safety features. The 1999 FRSS

survey found that:

 

3

 The school characteristics used as analysis variables in this report

are school instructional level, school enrollment size, locale

(central city, urban fringe/large town, rural/small town), region,

percent minority enrollment, and percent of students in the school

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (which indicates the

concentration of poverty in the school). Throughout this report,

differences (particularly those by school characteristics) that may

appear large may not be statistically significant. This is due in part

to the relatively large standard errors surrounding the estimates

(because of the small sample size) and the use of the Bonferroni

adjustment to control for multiple comparisons.
v

• Fifty percent of schools reported that at least

one of the nine building features at their

school was in less than adequate condition

(table 4), and three-quarters of those schools

had more than one building feature in less

than adequate condition (figure 1). Schools

in central cities were more likely than schools

in urban fringe areas and large towns to

report at least one building feature as less

than adequate (56 percent compared with 44

percent; table 4). Schools with the highest

concentration of poverty (70 percent or more

of the students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch) were more likely to report that at

least one building feature was in less than

adequate condition than were schools with 20

to 39 percent or schools with less than 20

percent of their students eligible for free or

reduced-price lunch (63 percent versus 45

percent each).

• Approximately one-fifth of schools indicated

less than adequate conditions for life safety

features, roofs, and electric power, and about

a quarter of schools reported less than

adequate conditions for plumbing, and for

exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors

(table 4). Heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning systems were reported to be in

less than adequate condition at 29 percent of

schools.

Environmental Conditions

Environmental conditions, such as heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning, are important

aspects of the day-to-day environment for

students. The 1999 FRSS survey on the condition

of public school facilities also collected

information on satisfaction with six different

environmental conditions: lighting, heating,

ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics or noise

control, and physical security of buildings. The

results of the 1999 FRSS survey indicate that:

• Forty-three percent of the schools reported

that at least one of the six environmental

factors was in unsatisfactory condition (table

8), and approximately two-thirds of those

schools had more than one environmental

condition in unsatisfactory condition (figure

2). Ventilation was the environmental

condition most likely to be perceived as

unsatisfactory (26 percent of schools; table

8). About a fifth of schools reported they

were unsatisfied with heating, indoor air

quality, acoustics or noise control, and the

physical security of buildings, and 12 percent

were unsatisfied with lighting conditions.

• Schools in rural areas and small towns were

more likely than schools in urban fringe areas

and large towns to report that at least one of

their environmental conditions was unsatisfactory (47 percent compared with 37 percent; table 8). Schools with the highest

concentration of poverty were more likely to

report at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition than were schools with the

lowest concentration of poverty (55 percent

compared with 38 percent).

• About one-third of schools were unsatisfied

with the energy efficiency of the school, and

38 percent were unsatisfied with their

flexibility of instructional space (see table 23

in appendix B).

Plans for Repairs, Renovation, or Replacement

The condition of school facilities is continuously

changing, and information about schools' future

plans for building or installing new structures or

additions, as well as plans to make major repairs,

renovations, or replacements in the next 2 years,

may provide insights into the future condition of

these facilities. The 1999 FRSS survey found

that:

• About two-thirds of public schools had

written long-range facilities plans that guide

their planning for facilities improvements

(table 12). One-fifth of schools reported

plans to build new attached and/or detached

permanent additions in the next 2 years, and 1

in 10 reported plans to install new temporary

buildings in the next 2 years (table 13).

• About half of the schools planned to make

major repairs, renovations, or replacements to

at least one building feature in the next 2

years (table 14). Overall, 41 percent of

schools indicated plans to make major repairs
vi

or renovations to at least one building feature,

and one-quarter planned to replace at least

one building feature in the next 2 years.

• Schools in less than adequate condition were

more likely to have plans for repairs,

renovations, or replacement. While 46

percent of schools in adequate or better

overall condition reported plans to repair,

renovate, or replace at least one building

feature in the next 2 years, 67 percent of

schools in less than adequate condition

reported such plans (figure 4).

Functional Age of Schools and School

Conditions

A number of reports have raised concerns about

the age of America’s public schools (e.g., U.S.

Department of Education 1999b). Because age of

the building, by itself, may be somewhat less

important than its history of maintenance and

renovation, a more accurate indication of a

school's age is its functional age. Functional age

is defined as the age of the school based on the

year of the most recent renovation or the year of

construction of the main instructional building(s)

if no renovation has occurred. Results of the

1999 FRSS survey indicate that:

• In 1999, the average age of the main

instructional building(s) of public schools

was 40 years, based on years since original

construction (table 17). Among schools that

had been renovated since construction, the

renovation, on average, occurred 11 years

ago.

• The average functional age of schools, based

on the year of the most recent renovation or

the year of construction if no renovation had

occurred, was calculated to be 16 years. In

general, average functional age did not vary

by school characteristics, although small

schools were older than medium or large

schools.

• The functional age of schools was found to be

related to their condition. Older schools were

more likely than newer schools to report less

than adequate or unsatisfactory conditions

(figure 6).

Overcrowding

Dramatic increases in enrollment due to the

“baby-boom echo,” immigration, and migration

have led many schools to enroll far more students

than they were designed to accommodate.4

Compounding these conditions are initiatives to

reduce class size, resulting in the need for even

more classrooms. As the public school system

copes with such conditions, there is growing

concern about the degree of overcrowding that

may exist in some schools. This report provides

information about the extent to which public

schools are overcrowded, at capacity, or

underenrolled.5 Overcrowded schools were

defined as having an enrollment that was more

than 5 percent above the capacity of the school's

permanent instructional buildings and space (i.e.,

overenrolled). Schools with enrollments within 5

percent of the capacity of their permanent

buildings and space were considered to be at

capacity, and schools with enrollments more than

5 percent below the capacity of their permanent

buildings and space were considered

underenrolled. The 1999 FRSS survey indicates

that:

• Overall, about half of public schools were

underenrolled, about one-quarter were within

5 percent of their capacity, and about a

quarter were overcrowded, based on the

capacity of their permanent instructional

buildings and space (table 19).

• Large schools were more likely than other

schools to be seriously overcrowded (more

than 25 percent overenrolled), while small

schools were more likely than other schools

to be severely underenrolled (table 19).

 

4

 Migration patterns (e.g., families moving out of particular areas)

and decisions families make with regard to their children’s

schooling (e.g., private school enrollment) may also lead to a

decline in enrollments among some public schools. These declines

may result in schools that are underenrolled.

5

 The proportion indicating the degree to which enrollment exceeds

or falls below the capacity of the permanent buildings and

instructional space was calculated using the following formula:

X = [(total student enrollment) – (capacity of

permanent instructional buildings and space)] /

(capacity of permanent instructional buildings and

space).
vii

Schools with a high minority enrollment

(more than 50 percent) were more likely than

schools with a low minority enrollment (5

percent or less) to be seriously overcrowded.

• Schools that were classified as overcrowded

were more likely than other schools to report

that at least one type of onsite building was in

less than adequate condition (figure 9).

Overcrowded schools were also more likely

than other schools to have at least one

building feature in less than adequate

condition, and to have at least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition.

• About a third (36 percent) of schools

indicated that they used portable classrooms,

and 20 percent reported using temporary

instructional space (table 22). Among these

schools, most reported using portables and

temporary instructional space to alleviate

overcrowding.

Conclusions

Although the majority of America's public

schools are in adequate or better condition, a

sizable minority are not. About a quarter of the

schools reported that at least one type of onsite

building was in less than adequate condition, half

reported that at least one building feature was in

less than adequate condition, and about 4 out of

10 reported at least one unsatisfactory

environmental condition. Data about the

functional age of schools suggest that the oldest

schools are most in need of attention, but that

many of these schools do not have plans for

improvement. About three-quarters of public

schools do not have problems with overcrowding,

but close to 10 percent have enrollments that are

more than 25 percent greater than the capacity of

their permanent buildings. Collectively, these

data provide a complex portrait of the current

physical condition and crowding in America's

public schools. Although the majority of schools

are in adequate condition, functionally young, and

not overcrowded, a substantial number of schools

are in poor condition, and some of them suffer

from age and overcrowding. Past experience

suggests that correcting these problems will be

costly.
viii
ix

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

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

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

What is the Condition of America’s Public Schools? ...................................... 1

Financing School Facilities and the Cost to Bring Them Into Good

Condition.......................................................................................................... 2

Factors Contributing to School Condition........................................................ 3

Deferred Maintenance and Renovation............................................... 3

Overcrowding...................................................................................... 4

The Condition of School Facilities Matters...................................................... 4

Study Methodology .......................................................................................... 6

Organization of This Report............................................................................. 7

2 Condition of Public Schools............................................................................................. 9

Presence and Overall Condition of Onsite Buildings....................................... 9

Condition of Building Features........................................................................ 13

Costs to Bring Schools Into Good Overall Condition...................................... 15

Sources of Cost Estimates................................................................................ 18

3 Environmental Conditions................................................................................................ 21

Satisfaction with Environmental Conditions.................................................... 21

Energy Efficiency and the Flexibility of Instructional Space........................... 23

Air Conditioning............................................................................................... 23

School Closures Due to Facilities Problems .................................................... 27

4 School Plans for Improvement ......................................................................................... 29

Written Facilities Plans .................................................................................... 29

Plans for Construction...................................................................................... 29

Plans for Major Repair, Renovation, or Replacement of Building Features.... 31

5 Functional Age of Schools: Condition and Plans for Improvement................................ 37

Determining the Age of Public Schools........................................................... 37

Functional Age and Condition of Schools........................................................ 39

Functional Age and Plans for Repair, Renovation, and Replacement.............. 42
x

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter Page

6 Overcrowding ................................................................................................................... 45

Extent of Overcrowding ................................................................................... 45

Overcrowding and School Condition ............................................................... 48

School Practices Used to Ease Overcrowding.................................................. 50

7 Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................... 55

The Overall Condition of Schools and Building Features................................ 55

The Cost of Bringing Schools Into Good Overall Condition ........................... 56

Satisfaction with Environmental Conditions in Schools.................................. 56

Plans for Construction, and for Major Repair, Renovation, or

Replacement of Building Features................................................................... 57

Functional Age of Schools............................................................................... 57

Overcrowding in Schools................................................................................. 58

School Facilities and Characteristics of Schools.............................................. 58

Conclusions...................................................................................................... 60

References.................................................................................................................................. 61

List of Appendices

Appendix

A: Survey Methodology ....................................................................................................... A-1

B: Tables of Standard Errors................................................................................................. B-1

C: Survey Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... C-1

List of Text Tables

Table

1 Percent of public schools with each type of building, and the percentage

distribution of ratings of the overall condition of the building types: 1999 ................... 10

2 Percent of public schools with each type of building, and the percent rating each

building type in less than adequate condition, by school characteristics: 1999.............. 12

3 Number and percentage distributions of public schools and enrollments according

to the condition of all onsite building types: 1999.......................................................... 13

4 Percent of public schools rating the condition of building features as less than

adequate, by school characteristics: 1999....................................................................... 14
xi

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Text Tables

Table Page

5 Percent of public schools reporting the need to spend money on repairs,

renovations, and modernizations to bring the school into good overall condition,

and the cost per student of the repairs, renovations, and modernizations, by school

characteristics: 1999 ....................................................................................................... 17

6 Percent of public schools indicating the sources of cost estimates for all repairs,

renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into

good overall condition: 1999........................................................................................... 19

7 Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the type of source used for cost

estimates and the average cost per school for all repairs, renovations, and

modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into good overall

condition: 1999................................................................................................................ 19

8 Percent of public schools rating the condition of environmental factors as

unsatisfactory, by school characteristics: 1999............................................................... 22

9 Percentage distribution of public schools according to the status of air conditioning

in various areas of their school buildings: 1999 ............................................................. 24

10 Percentage distribution of public schools according to the status of air conditioning

in classrooms, by school characteristics: 1999 ............................................................... 25

11 Percent of public schools with air conditioning in various areas of the school, and

the percentage distribution of those schools according to satisfaction with the

condition of air conditioning in the school areas: 1999.................................................. 26

12 Percent of public schools with a written long-range educational facilities plan for

the school, by school characteristics: 1999..................................................................... 30

13 Percent of public schools with construction projects planned for the school in the

next 2 years, by school characteristics: 1999.................................................................. 31

14 Percent of public schools with plans to make at least one major repair, renovation,

or replacement to a building feature in the next 2 years, by school

characteristics: 1999 ....................................................................................................... 32

15 Percentage distribution of public schools according to their plans for major repair,

renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next 2 years: 1999 .............. 34

16 Percentage distribution of public schools according to school plans for major

repair, renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next 2 years, by

condition of the building feature: 1999 .......................................................................... 35
xii

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Text Tables

Table Page

17 Age of public schools based upon years since construction of the main instructional

building(s), years since most recent major renovation, and functional age of the

school, by school characteristics: 1999 .......................................................................... 38

18 Percentage distribution of public schools according to the functional age of the

school, by school characteristics: 1999 .......................................................................... 40

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

capacity, or overcrowded, by school characteristics: 1999 ............................................ 47

20 Percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio category rating the

condition of building features as less than adequate: 1999 ............................................. 52

21 Percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio category rating the

condition of environmental factors as unsatisfactory: 1999 ............................................ 52

22 Percent of public schools that report using various space and scheduling practices,

and the extent to which the practice is used to alleviate overcrowding: 1999................ 53

List of Figures

Figure

1 Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one building feature in less

than adequate condition according to the number of building features that are in

less than adequate condition: 1999................................................................................. 16

2 Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one environmental factor in

unsatisfactory condition according to the number of environmental factors that are

in unsatisfactory condition: 1999.................................................................................... 24

3 Percentage distribution of public schools with facilities-related closures according

to the number of instructional days the school was closed due to inadequacies or

problems with facilities during the 1998-99 school year................................................. 27

4 Percentage distribution of public schools according to whether there are plans to

make major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any building feature in the

next 2 years, by condition of onsite buildings: 1999 ....................................................... 34

5 Percentage distribution of public schools according to the functional age of the

school: 1999.................................................................................................................... 39
xiii

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Figures

Figures Page

6 Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than

adequate condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or

at least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by functional age

category: 1999 ................................................................................................................. 41

7 Percentage distribution of public schools in each category of functional age by

whether there are plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any

building feature in the next 2 years: 1999 ....................................................................... 43

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

capacity, or overcrowded: 1999...................................................................................... 46

9 Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than

adequate condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or

at least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by enrollment to

capacity ratio category: 1999........................................................................................... 49

10 Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition and mean

number of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory, by enrollment to capacity

ratio category: 1999 ........................................................................................................ 51

List of Exhibits

Exhibit

1 Scale used to rate the overall condition of onsite buildings and the physical

condition of various building features: 1999 .................................................................. 10
xiv
1

1. INTRODUCTION

The physical condition of the nation’s public

schools has been an important topic of discussion

among policymakers, educators, and parents in

recent years. Newspaper stories (e.g., Nakamura

2000; Seymour 2000) and research studies (e.g.,

U.S. GAO 1995a) describing broken plumbing,

poor ventilation, and overcrowding have raised

concerns about the effects of school facilities on

teaching and learning. There is also apprehension

that older schools with outdated electrical wiring

will be left behind newer schools in the effort to

connect schools to the Internet. More importantly, some conditions, like sagging roofs or lead

exposure, raise serious concerns about student

and teacher safety.

Over the past decade, a number of lawsuits

challenging school funding for facilities have

drawn attention to the poor conditions that many

students encounter at school. According to the

Arizona Supreme Court, for example:

Some districts have schoolhouses that are

unsafe, unhealthy, and in violation of

building, fire, and safety codes. Some

districts use dirt lots for playgrounds.

There are schools without libraries, science

laboratories, computer rooms, art

programs, gymnasiums, and auditoriums.

But in other districts, there are schools with

indoor swimming pools, a domed stadium,

science laboratories, television studios,

well stocked libraries, satellite dishes, and

extensive computer systems [Roosevelt

Elementary School No. 66 v. Bishop, 877

P. 2d 806 (Ariz. 1994)].

Similar descriptions can be found in a number of

reports released by the United States General

Accounting Office (GAO). According to a 1994

GAO study (1995a), approximately 14 million

students attended schools that were in need of

extensive repairs in 1994. In fact, at that time a

majority of the nation’s public schools (60

percent) were in need of repair.

The purpose of this report is to provide national

data about the condition of public schools in 1999

based on a survey conducted by the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) using its

Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). FRSS is a

survey system designed to collect small amounts

of issue-oriented data with minimal burden on

respondents and within a relatively short

timeframe. The results presented in this report

are based on questionnaire data for 903 public

elementary and secondary schools in the United

States. The questionnaire responses were

weighted to produce national estimates that

represent all regular public schools in the United

States.

This report provides information about the

condition of school facilities and the costs to

bring them into good condition; school plans for

repairs, renovations, and replacements; the age of

public schools; and overcrowding and practices

used to address overcrowding. Information about

the condition of school facilities is based on

questionnaire rating scales rather than on physical

observation of school conditions by outside

observers. The remainder of this chapter provides

background information about the condition of

school facilities.

What is the Condition of America’s

Public Schools?

Observations of school facilities have appeared in

headlines, speeches, and reports that focus on the

deteriorating environmental and physical

conditions of the nation’s schools. The Education

Writers Association (Lewis et al. 1989), for

example, reported a decade ago that the physical

condition of one out of every four school

buildings in America was inadequate. Of these,

over 60 percent were labeled inadequate due to

lack of repair and maintenance. In 1995, GAO

released a report on school facilities indicating

that things had not improved and appeared to
2

have grown worse (U.S. GAO 1995a). According

to GAO, one-third of both elementary and

secondary schools reported having one entire

building in need of extensive repairs or

replacement. Approximately 60 percent of

schools reported that at least one building feature

needed extensive repair, overhaul, or replacement.

The features most in need of repair, according to

GAO (1995a), included heating, ventilation, air

conditioning, plumbing, roofs, exterior walls,

electrical power, windows, and doors. Because of

this state of disrepair, 41 percent of schools

reported poor energy efficiency. In addition, 50

percent of schools reported having at least one

unsatisfactory environmental condition, including

conditions that violate federal mandates (e.g.,

exposure to lead and radon gas). In addition, the

decay and neglect described by GAO decreased

the ability of many older school buildings to meet

the proposed technology goals. In some schools,

old, outdated wiring makes the use of technology

for both educational and administrative purposes

impossible (Hansen 1992).

Despite considerable focus on the unsuitable

conditions of many of America’s schools, Kozol

(1991) and others (e.g., Corcoran, Walker, and

White 1988; Lewis et al. 1989) highlight an

important point: the condition of the nation’s

schools varies widely. Some schools are in poor

condition as previously described, and some

schools are in exceptional condition. Most

schools, however, fall somewhere in the middle;

they are in “adequate” or “better” overall

condition (U.S. GAO 1995a). School conditions,

whether poor, average, or exceptional, often vary

by location (e.g., urban versus suburban) and

characteristics of the community (e.g., impoverished versus wealthy). For example, GAO

(1996) reported that in 1994, the largest

proportion of schools reporting deficient school

conditions was in central cities serving more than

50 percent minority students or 70 percent or

more poor students. However, GAO (1996) also

found that poor conditions exist in many rural

areas; one out of every two rural schools had at

least one inadequate structural or mechanical

feature.

Financing School Facilities and the

Cost to Bring Them Into Good

Condition

Financing public education in the United States

relies on the combined effort of state and local

appropriations, as well as funds available from

the federal government (Howell and Miller 1997).

Because school facilities are funded primarily by

local revenues, characteristics of the community,

particularly the property tax base, are important

factors contributing to the condition of schools

(Lewis et al. 1989; U.S. Department of Education

1995). Because community factors tend to vary,

they lead to disparity in the funding available for

schools from community to community

(Augenblick, Myers, and Anderson 1997; U.S.

GAO 1995c; U.S. Department of Education 1995;

Terman and Behrman 1997).

Disparities in funding for schools in general, and

school facilities in particular, are exacerbated by

the cost for providing facilities that are in good

condition. There are a number of studies on

school construction costs. Some of them focus on

funds spent on school facilities; others report

estimates of funds needed for school facilities.

While each one offers a unique perspective,

differences between funds spent and funds

needed, and differences in the elements each

study includes under school construction, make it

impossible to draw direct comparisons across the

studies.

The 1994 GAO study estimated that $101 billion

was needed for repairs, renovations, and

modernizations to bring schools’ onsite buildings

into good overall condition (U.S. GAO 1995a).

The study also estimated that $11 billion dollars

would be needed in the next 3 years to comply

with various federal mandates that impact school

construction, such as asbestos removal and

accessibility for students with disabilities.6

 

6

 The $101 billion and the $11 billion were collected in two separate

questions on the survey. However, GAO frequently presents an

estimate of $112 billion needed, which they derive by summing

the amounts reported in these two questions. It is possible that the

$112 billion includes some duplication of money needed, since the

$11 billion needed to comply with federal mandates may or may
3

A more recent GAO study of actual school

construction expenditures included expenditures

for acquired and constructed buildings, land, and

equipment such as heating and air conditioning

systems (U.S. GAO 2000). This study found that

annual construction expenditures for public

schools in the United States grew by 39 percent

from fiscal years 1990 through 1997, from about

$17.8 billion to about $24.7 billion after adjusting

for inflation.

In another study on school construction costs,

Abramson (1999) reported that public schools

completed construction projects totaling $15

billion in 1998, with a projected expenditure of

$17.2 billion for 1999. Of the projected spending

in 1999, approximately 50 percent was to be used

for new construction, 24 percent for additions,

and 26 percent for renovations. With advances in

technology, new construction is becoming

increasingly expensive. Abramson (1999)

provided data concerning the facilities that were

planned for new schools constructed in 1999.

While these new schools all will have the core

features of cafeterias and libraries (among other

features), most will have a computer lab (60

percent of elementary, 91 percent of middle, and

85 percent of high schools) and local area

networks (LANs) (80 percent of elementary, 95

percent of middle, and 90 percent of high

schools), and many secondary schools will have

technology labs (33 percent of middle schools

and 44 percent of high schools).

A recently published National Education

Association (NEA) report looked at funds needed

for school infrastructure and education

technology (NEA 2000). In this report, school

infrastructure included new school construction,

additions to existing buildings, renovation,

retrofitting, deferred maintenance, and major

improvements to grounds. In addition, education

technology included computers and peripherals,

software, connectivity, networks, technology

infrastructure, distance education, maintenance

and repair of technology equipment, and

technology-related professional development and

ongoing support for teachers. Taking all of this

 

not have been included by respondents in the $101 billion needed

to put schools into good overall condition.

into account, the NEA provided a cost estimate of

$322 billion needed for school modernization.7

Factors Contributing to School

Condition

The funding of public school facilities may be

important insofar as it affects the way schools

address two important factors contributing to the

decline of school facilities: (1) deferred maintenance and renovation, and (2) overcrowding

(e.g., U.S. GAO 1995a; Hansen 1992; U.S.

Department of Education 1999a).

Deferred Maintenance and Renovation

A number of reports have raised concerns about

the age of America’s public schools (e.g., U.S.

Department of Education 1999b). Older

buildings may fall into disrepair or lack the

infrastructure necessary for adequate electrical

and telecommunications wiring (U.S. GAO

1995b). However, age of the building, by itself,

is somewhat less important than is its history of

maintenance and renovation, as well as the

adequacy of the original construction. Regular

maintenance is critical to keeping schools in good

condition.

The growing demand for new school

construction, as well as choices that school

districts must make about where to spend limited

funds (e.g., facilities versus instructional

programs), has forced many school districts to

overlook the maintenance and modernization of

old schools. For example, GAO (1995a) found

that district officials attributed declining

conditions primarily to insufficient funds,

resulting from decisions to defer maintenance and

repair expenditures from year to year. However,

maintenance can only be deferred for a short

period of time before school facilities begin to

deteriorate in noticeable ways. Without regular

 

7

 While NEA describes the study as a 50-state report of school

modernization needs, the study received usable responses about

infrastructure from only 24 states, and about education technology

from only 2 states. The remaining data were derived by various

estimation techniques described in the report.
4

maintenance, equipment begins to break down,

indoor air problems multiply, and buildings fall

into greater disrepair (Hansen 1992). The lack of

regular maintenance can also result in a host of

health and safety problems, including exposure to

carbon monoxide and risk of physical injuries.

Additionally, deferred maintenance increases the

cost of maintaining school facilities; it speeds up

the deterioration of buildings and the need to

replace equipment (Hansen 1992).

Overcrowding

Like deferred maintenance and renovation,

overcrowding is an important topic to consider

when examining the condition of school facilities.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of

students enrolled in the school is larger than the

number of students the school was designed to

accommodate. It both characterizes the condition

of school facilities (e.g., the facilities are too

small to accommodate the students and teachers

who reside there) and contributes to the decline of

these facilities (e.g., overcrowded facilities are

typically overused facilities that grow old before

their time). A number of recent reports indicate

that overcrowding is a serious problem in many

school districts (Burnett 1995; Corcoran, Walker,

and White 1988; Lewis et al. 1989; Fernandez

and Timpane 1995; U.S. GAO 1995a; EdSource

1998; Rivera-Batiz and Marti 1995; Lowe 1996;

U.S. Department of Education 1998; U.S.

Department of Education 1999a). Dramatic

increases in enrollment due to the “baby-boom

echo,” immigration, and migration have led many

schools to enroll far more students than they were

designed to accommodate.8 Compounding these

conditions are initiatives to reduce class size,

resulting in the need for even more classrooms.

To deal with overcrowding, school districts and

schools have adopted a number of short-term

solutions. For example, many have converted

noninstructional space into classrooms. In such

 

8

 Migration patterns (e.g., families moving out of particular areas)

and decisions families make with regard to their children’s

schooling (e.g., private school enrollment) may also lead to a

decline in enrollments among some public schools. These declines

may result in schools that are underenrolled.

schools, students are placed in spaces never

intended as classrooms, such as gymnasiums,

libraries, cafeterias, and even closets (Burnett

1995). Another popular solution is portable

classrooms. These temporary structures are

becoming a more permanent feature of schools;

some have been in use for as long as 40 years

(Lewis et al. 1989). Portables are a prominent

adaptation school districts are using to meet space

needs; however, recent accounts suggest that they

may not be a particularly suitable alternative

(U.S. GAO 1995a). Findings from a recent U.S.

Department of Education report (1999a) suggest

that overcrowding will likely become more

serious in the future and that short-term solutions,

such as portable classrooms, may not be sufficient

to accommodate the long-term enrollment boom

that is expected over the next two decades.

The Condition of School Facilities

Matters

There are many ways in which the condition of

school facilities may be directly or indirectly

relevant to students and their families. The issues

of greatest concern surrounding the topic—as

reflected in the popular press, the research

literature, and courtrooms nationwide—include

equal access to adequate school facilities and

student safety, as well as more academic matters,

such as student achievement.

As described earlier in this chapter, many states

have been sued over the degree of disparity in

their school facilities funding systems. For

example, variations in the quality of Ohio’s

public school facilities have been cited as key

evidence for the violation of the uniform

education articles provided by the state’s own

constitution (e.g., The State of Ohio v. DeRolph,

677 N.E. 2d 733 [Ohio 1997]). The courts'

interpretations of uniform education as it relates

to facilities have gone beyond the right to have

access to adequate facilities and materials; several

courts have asserted that widely disparate school

funding systems—in particular, funding for

facilities—prevent students from attaining equal

educational opportunities, achievement, and job

opportunities (e.g., The State of Ohio v. DeRolph,
5

677 N.E. 2d 733 [Ohio 1997]; Roosevelt

Elementary School No. 66 v. Bishop, 877 P. 2d

806 [Ariz. 1994]).

Lack of adequate school facilities may also result

in conditions that compromise student safety.

Students who attend schools in poor condition

may be exposed to such health threats as poor air

quality, hazardous materials, and sewage

overflows. In more extreme cases, students may

also be put in more immediate physical danger

when parts of the building collapse or when

safety features (e.g., fire alarms, sprinkler

systems) fail. In fact, witnesses in the Ohio v.

DeRolph case testified that arsenic was found in

the drinking water of an elementary school and

that chunks of plaster routinely fell from the

ceilings of several schools. Similarly, GAO

(1995a) documented numerous individual

accounts of threats to student safety: the ceiling

of an Alabama elementary school collapsed less

than an hour after students had left for the day;

the glass from 70-year-old windows blew into a

Washington, D.C., elementary classroom during a

windstorm; and many students who suffer from

asthma were frequently put at risk by poor

ventilation and unhealthy air quality. To

compound the problem, in 1994, over 14,000

schools across the country had less than adequate

life safety features, such as sprinkler systems

(U.S. GAO 1995a). Therefore, dangerous conditions that may normally be prevented or

controlled (e.g., fires, carbon monoxide levels)

were not adequately monitored.

Many studies have explored the relationship

between school conditions and achievementrelated behavior (Burnett 1995; McGuffey 1982;

Rivera-Batiz and Marti 1995; Weinstein 1979).

For example, Earthman and Lemasters (1996)

reviewed several recent studies of the influence of

school conditions on academic achievement. All

of the studies found the same relationship, to

varying degrees, between school facilities and

student achievement. That is, higher rankings of

structural and mechanical (e.g., heating and

cooling systems) or cosmetic conditions (e.g.,

how recently the walls have been painted) were

correlated with higher achievement scores. This

relationship was generally found to be stronger

for cosmetic than structural school conditions.

However, Earthman and Lemasters caution

readers about the findings; they concluded that

despite a large number of research studies, “it is

difficult to determine any definite line of

consistent findings” (p. 3). These conclusions

have been supported by other researchers. For

example, Ferguson (1991), in a study of school

expenditures, stated that “some [of these]

expenditures—particularly transportation and

maintenance—have logical relationships to

learning that are at best indirect” (p. 484). He

concluded that “few would argue that spending

more on transportation and maintenance should

increase test scores, though most would agree that

such spending matters” (p. 484).

Much of the research on the effects of school

facilities on student achievement shares a number

of general limitations. For example, many of the

studies Earthman and Lemasters (1996) reviewed

provided no evidence of statistical testing (e.g.,

Cash 1993; Earthman, Cash, and Van Berkum

1995). Another study (Berner 1993) suffers from

different methodological concerns, including a

sample size too small to support the analysis the

author runs (e.g., a regression model with 41

cases and 9 independent variables) and control

variables that are 9 years older than the variables

measuring school condition and student achievement. More importantly, however, many of these

research studies did not take into account a

number of meaningful differences between

schools in poor and good conditions that may

explain the findings they report. For example,

schools in poor condition may be less likely to

have resources important for academic

achievement, such as high-quality teachers,

effective leadership, high levels of parental

involvement, and more appropriate materials

(e.g., laboratory equipment, textbooks). These

resources, rather than the condition of the

physical plant, may explain achievement differences between students in schools of various

conditions.

Researchers may have had difficulty establishing

a relationship between facilities and achievement

because if school conditions do have an impact on

student learning, their effects are likely to be

indirect. Specifically, student learning is

generally believed to be affected by factors such
6

as lost instructional time, reduced attention, and

diminished curricular options that may result

from facilities-related problems (e.g., school

closings, classroom shortages, overcrowding;

Duke et al. 1998; Rivera-Batiz and Marti 1995).

It is difficult to detect indirect effects in the

absence of detailed surveys of students and

teachers and suitable measures to control for

other differences between schools in poor

condition and schools in good condition.

However, researchers who have studied school

facilities and the teaching and learning process

have found some interesting relationships. For

example, a survey of overcrowded schools in

New York City found that 75 percent of teachers

indicated that overcrowding affects classroom

activities, and 70 percent of teachers indicated

that overcrowding affected their instructional

techniques (Rivera-Batiz and Marti 1995).

Corcoran, Walker, and White (1988) found that

overcrowding, as well as heavy teacher

workloads, created stressful working conditions

for teachers and led to higher teacher

absenteeism. The survey of New York City

schools mentioned earlier found that nearly 40

percent of students indicated that they had

problems concentrating in their classes when they

were learning something new (Rivera-Batiz and

Marti 1995).

Study Methodology

The survey on the Condition of Public School

Facilities was conducted through NCES’ FRSS

during summer and early fall 1999. The results

presented in this report are based on questionnaire

data for 903 public elementary and secondary

schools in the United States. Information about

the condition of school facilities is based on

questionnaire rating scales rather than on physical

observation of school conditions by outside

observers. While individual schools were

sampled, the questionnaires were mailed to the

districts with which the schools were associated.

The cover letter indicated that the survey was

designed to be completed by district-level

personnel who were very familiar with the school

facilities in the district. The letter indicated that

the respondent might want to consult with other

district-level personnel or with school-level

personnel, such as the principal of the selected

school, in answering some of the questions. The

respondent section on the front of the

questionnaire indicated that while most

questionnaires were completed by district-level

respondents, some were completed by schoollevel respondents (usually the school principal).

To maintain the focus on schools, which are the

sampled unit, the report refers to schools

indicating or reporting various findings, even

though respondents were primarily district-level

personnel reporting about the sampled school.

Many of the questionnaire items on the FRSS

survey are taken from the 1994 GAO survey. The

same questionnaire items and analysis variables

were used with the intention of providing

information about change in the condition of

public school facilities between 1994, when GAO

conducted its survey, and 1999, when NCES

conducted its survey. However, the GAO

information included in this report is provided as

contextual information only. Statistical

comparisons are not provided because GAO does

not provide standard errors for the data in their

reports, and exact point estimates are also missing

for some comparative statements from the GAO

reports.

Like the 1994 GAO study, this FRSS study also

asked for an estimate of the total costs of all

repairs, renovations, and modernizations required

to bring the onsite buildings into good overall

condition. However, for the FRSS study, schools

for which the condition of any type of onsite

school building or any building feature (e.g.,

roofs, plumbing) was less than good provided

information about the cost of needed repairs,

renovations, and modernizations. Thus, even

though the wording of the cost item on the 1994

GAO and 1999 FRSS studies was the same, the

two studies include costs for different things.9

The school characteristics used as analysis

variables in this report are school instructional

level, school enrollment size, locale (central city,

 

9

 See appendix A for additional information about the 1994 GAO

cost estimate, and further discussion of comparability issues for the

cost estimates between the 1994 GAO and 1999 FRSS studies.
7

urban fringe/large town, rural/small town),

region, percent minority enrollment, and percent

of students in the school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch (which indicates the

concentration of poverty in the school). These

variables are defined in appendix A.

The questionnaire responses were weighted to

produce national estimates that represent all

regular public schools in the United States. All

comparative statements in this report have been

tested for statistical significance using chi-square

tests or t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons

using the Bonferroni adjustment and are

significant at the 0.05 level. Throughout this

report, differences that may appear large

(particularly those by school characteristics) may

not be statistically significant. This is due in part

to the relatively large standard errors surrounding

the estimates (because of the small sample size),

and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment to

control for multiple comparisons. Appendix A

provides a detailed discussion of the sample and

survey methodology.

Organization of This Report

The chapters that follow present information

about the condition of America’s public schools

in 1999. Specifically, chapter 2 presents

information about the presence and overall

condition of various types of onsite buildings, and

the condition of nine different building features

(e.g., roofs, plumbing). Information is also

provided about the cost to put school buildings

into good overall condition, and the sources of

estimates for those costs. Chapter 3 reports about

satisfaction with various environmental factors

(e.g., heating, ventilation) in the schools’ onsite

buildings, and provides information about the

status and satisfaction with air conditioning in

various areas of the schools. Chapter 4 discusses

school plans for new construction and for major

repair, renovation, or replacement of building

features in the next 2 years. Chapter 5 examines

the issue of the age of America’s public schools,

including determining the age of schools, and

how age relates to the condition of schools and

plans for repair, renovation, and replacement.

Chapter 6 presents data regarding the extent of

overcrowding in public schools, the relationship

between overcrowding and school condition, and

various practices that schools may use to ease

overcrowding. The concluding chapter summarizes the findings of this study and draws some

overall conclusions about the findings. Technical

information, including a detailed study

methodology (appendix A) and tables of standard

errors for all data presented in this report

(appendix B), are included as technical

appendices to the report. The questionnaire is

included in appendix C.
8
9

2. CONDITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The condition of public schools has received a lot

of attention from various stakeholders in the

educational process, including parents, educators,

and policymakers at various levels. This chapter

presents information about the condition of

America’s schools in 1999, including the

presence and overall condition of various types of

onsite buildings, and the condition of nine

different building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing).

Information is also provided about the cost to put

school buildings into good overall condition, and

the sources of estimates for those costs.

Presence and Overall Condition of

Onsite Buildings

This study collected information about the overall

condition of the original buildings, the attached

and/or detached permanent additions, and the

temporary buildings10 on site at the school.

Overall condition includes both physical

condition and the ability of the building to meet

the functional requirements of instructional

programs. The rating scale used (see exhibit 1)

indicated the amount of maintenance and repair

required for that type of building at the school,

and included the following categories: excellent,

good, adequate, fair, poor, and replace. 11

 

10 Examples of onsite temporary buildings include portables,

demountables (which are prefabricated buildings assembled on site

that are not intended to have a long useful life), trailers, and

Quonset huts. Temporary buildings are not necessarily poorquality space. The quality of temporary buildings depends on

many of the same factors as the quality of original buildings and

permanent additions, including the age of the building, the type of

building it is, ongoing maintenance of the building, and the

infrastructure to support it (e.g., adequate heating, ventilation, and

air conditioning). In some cases, new temporary buildings may be

preferred by students and teachers over older permanent space (for

example, see Mathews 2000).

11 This questionnaire item was drawn from the 1994 GAO study.

Virtually all of the approximately 78,300 regular

public schools had original buildings,12 and twothirds of the schools had attached and/or detached

permanent additions (table 1). Temporary

buildings were less prevalent, with 39 percent of

the schools indicating that they had temporary

buildings. The overall condition of the various

types of buildings generally was perceived to be

positive, with 81 percent of schools reporting

their original buildings to be in adequate or better

condition, 84 percent of those having permanent

additions reporting them to be in adequate or

better condition, and 81 percent of those having

temporary buildings reporting them to be in

adequate or better condition.13 Permanent

additions were somewhat more likely than

original or temporary buildings to be in excellent

condition, and temporary buildings were

somewhat more likely than original buildings and

permanent additions to be in adequate condition.

Although a majority of schools reported their

original buildings, permanent additions, and

temporary buildings to be in adequate or better

condition, about a fifth of schools having a

particular type of building reported them to be in

less than adequate condition (table 1). That is, 19

percent of schools reported their original

buildings to be in less than adequate condition, 16

percent of those having permanent additions

reported them as less than adequate, and 19

 

12 While this question was designed by GAO with the assumption

that all schools would have original buildings, it was discovered

during data collection on the FRSS survey that a few schools have

removed old original buildings and left in place detached

permanent additions that were added over the years. In addition, a

few schools are composed entirely of temporary buildings. The

data entry system on the FRSS survey was modified to allow

schools to indicate that they do not have original buildings.

13 Ratings of adequate or better encompass the ratings of excellent,

good, and adequate. Ratings of less than adequate encompass the

ratings of fair, poor, and replace. See exhibit 1 for the definitions

associated with the rating scale.
10

Exhibit 1.—Scale used to rate the overall condition of onsite buildings and the physical condition of

various building features: 1999

Excellent: new or easily restorable to “like new” condition; only minimal routine maintenance required.

Good: only routine maintenance or minor repair required.

Adequate: some preventative maintenance and/or corrective repair required.

Fair: fails to meet code and functional requirement in some cases; failure(s) are inconvenient; extensive corrective

maintenance and repair required.

Poor: consistent substandard performance; failure(s) are disruptive and costly; fails most code and functional

requirements; requires constant attention, renovation, or replacement. Major corrective repair or overhaul required.

Replace: Non-operational or significantly substandard performance. Replacement required.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Table 1.—Percent of public schools with each type of building, and the percentage distribution of

ratings of the overall condition of the building types: 1999

Overall condition1

Type of building Adequate or better Less than adequate

School has

building

type Total Excellent Good Adequate Total Fair Poor Replace

Original buildings.....

2

100 81 16 38 26 19 13 5 2

Permanent additions . 67 84 24 36 24 16 11 4

3

1

Temporary buildings. 39 81 11 37 33 19 12 6 1

1Based on schools with that type of building.

2Rounds to 100 percent for presentation in the table.

3 Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

percent of schools having temporary buildings

reported them to be in less than adequate

condition.14 This included 4 to 6 percent reporting

buildings in poor condition (defined as consistent

substandard performance; see exhibit 1), and 1 to

2 percent reporting that buildings needed to be

replaced due to significantly substandard

performance or non-operational condition.

 

14 For comparison purposes, GAO reported for 1994 that 26 percent

of schools reported that their original buildings were in less than

adequate condition, 18 percent of schools reported their permanent

additions in less than adequate condition, and 28 percent of

schools reported that their temporary buildings were in less than

adequate condition (U.S. GAO 1995a).

The presence and condition of original buildings

did not vary significantly by school characteristics15 (table 2). The presence of permanent

 

15 The school characteristics used as analysis variables in this report

are school instructional level, school enrollment size, locale

(central city, urban fringe/large town, rural/small town), region,

percent minority enrollment, and percent of students in the school

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (which indicates the

concentration of poverty in the school). These variables are

defined in appendix A. Throughout this report, differences

(particularly those by school characteristics) that may appear large

may not be statistically significant. This is due in part to the

relatively large standard errors surrounding the estimates (because

of the small sample size and the high variability on some of the

responses), and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment to control for

multiple comparisons. Standard errors and the Bonferroni
11

additions varied slightly by region, with schools

in the Northeast less likely to have permanent

additions than schools in the South or the West

(55 percent compared with 71 percent and 69

percent, respectively). Among schools having

permanent additions, schools with the highest

concentration of poverty (defined here as 70

percent or more of the students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch) were more likely to

report that their permanent additions were in less

than adequate condition than were schools with

20 to 39 percent or schools with less than 20

percent of their students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch (30 percent versus 13

percent and 8 percent, respectively).

The presence of temporary buildings showed

somewhat more variation by school characteristics (table 2). Schools in central cities and in

urban fringe areas and large towns were more

likely to have temporary buildings than were

schools in rural areas and small towns (45 percent

and 44 percent, respectively, compared with 29

percent). About a fifth of schools in the

Northeast and Midwest had temporary buildings,

compared with 49 percent in the South and 65

percent in the West. Schools with the lowest

minority enrollment were less likely to have

temporary buildings than were schools with

higher minority enrollment (25 percent compared

with 39 to 51 percent). The condition of

temporary buildings did not vary significantly by

school characteristics.16

 

adjustment are discussed in the section on variances in appendix

A. In addition, GAO reports more differences by school

characteristics than are found in this study. This is discussed in

appendix A in the section on comparisons to the GAO study.

16 It is important to keep in mind the wide range in the prevalence of

temporary buildings when examining the ratings of their overall

condition. For example, the condition ratings for temporary

buildings in schools with the lowest minority enrollment are based

on the 25 percent of low minority enrollment schools that have

such buildings, compared with the ratings for schools with the

highest minority enrollment, which are based on the 51 percent of

high minority enrollment schools that have such buildings. These

differences in prevalence influence the likelihood that ratings of

their condition will be significantly different.

Differences in the presence of temporary

buildings may be related to differences in public

school enrollment growth. According to a 1999

report by the U.S. Department of Education

(1999a), the West and the South led the nation in

school enrollment growth, and cities and suburbs

both experienced substantial school enrollment

growth in the last 10 years. Enrollment growth in

the West was particularly notable, increasing 26

percent from 1989 to 1999. During this time

period, public school enrollment grew by 16

percent in the South, 14 percent in the Northeast,

and 10 percent in the Midwest.

Looking across all the types of onsite buildings,

76 percent of the schools overall reported that all

the types of onsite buildings at their school were

in adequate or better condition (table 3). This did

not vary significantly by school characteristics

(not shown in tables). Approximately 34 million

students attended the estimated 59,500 schools

that reported all building types in adequate or

better condition (table 3). The remaining 24

percent of schools reported that at least one of

their types of onsite buildings was in less than

adequate condition. These 18,700 schools

enrolled approximately 11 million students.

Approximately 3.5 million of these students

attended schools where at least one type of

building was in poor condition (defined as

consistent substandard performance) or needed to

be replaced because it was non-operational or

showed significantly substandard performance

(not shown in tables).17

 

17 GAO reported for 1994 that for all types of buildings, two-thirds

of the nation’s schools were in adequate or better condition,

needing at most only some preventive maintenance or corrective

repair (U.S. GAO 1995a). They estimated that approximately 14

million students attended the estimated 25,000 schools in which at

least one type of building was in less than adequate condition,

needing extensive repair or replacement.
12

Table 2.—Percent of public schools with each type of building, and the percent rating each building

type in less than adequate condition, by school characteristics: 1999

Original buildings Permanent additions Temporary buildings

School characteristic School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition1

School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition1

School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition1

All public schools................................

2

100 19 67 16 39 19

School instructional level

Elementary school...............................

2

100 19 64 17 40 18

High school ......................................... 99 21 74 14 37 21

Combined............................................ 100 310 92 311 27 —

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ...................................... 99 22 64 16 21 —

300 to 599 ........................................... 100 19 70 17 39 22

600 or more .........................................

2

100 18 65 14 50 20

Locale

Central city.......................................... 100 20 62 18 45 19

Urban fringe/large town ...................... 100 18 66 17 44 18

Rural/small town ................................. 99 19 71 14 29 19

Region

Northeast............................................. 100 17 55 11 20 —

Midwest .............................................. 100 20 67 12 19 22

South ................................................... 100 16 71 17 49 19

West .................................................... 99 25 69 22 65 20

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................... 99 19 68 11 25 12

6 to 20 percent.....................................

2

100 18 70 14 39 22

21 to 50 percent................................... 100 16 62 16 44 14

More than 50 percent .......................... 100 23 67 24 51 24

Percent of students in school eligible

for free or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent............................ 99 20 63 8 35 17

20 to 39 percent................................... 100 18 64 13 36 16

40 to 69 percent................................... 100 16 74 16 42 19

70 percent or more .............................. 100 25 65 30 43 25

— Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

1Based on schools with that type of building. Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

2Rounds to 100 percent for presentation in the table.

3 Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
13

Table 3.—Number and percentage distributions of public schools and enrollments according to the

condition of all onsite building types: 1999

Schools Students

Condition of all onsite building types Percentage

distribution

Number

Percentage

distribution

Number

All public schools............................................. 100 78,300 100 45,000,000

Schools with all building types in adequate or

better condition1............................................... 76 59,500 76 34,000,000

Schools with at least one type of building in less

than adequate condition2.................................. 24 18,700 24 11,000,000

1Ratings of adequate or better encompass the ratings of excellent, good, and adequate.

2Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

NOTE: Percentages are computed within each column, and are computed on unrounded numbers. The numbers of schools have been rounded to

the nearest hundred, and the numbers of students have been rounded to the nearest million. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.

The condition of all onsite building types is computed across original buildings, permanent additions, and temporary buildings.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Condition of Building Features

The questionnaire asked for ratings of the

condition of nine different building features (e.g.,

roofs, plumbing) for the school’s onsite buildings,

using the same scale used to rate building types

(see exhibit 1).18 While the majority of public

schools reported that the individual building

features at their schools were in adequate or better

condition, a sizable minority (ranging from 14

percent to 29 percent) indicated that various

individual building features were in less than

adequate condition19 (table 4). About one in

seven schools reported that their framing, floors,

and foundations were in less than adequate

condition, and about one in six schools reported

interior finishes and trim, and electrical lighting

to be in less than adequate condition.

Approximately a fifth of schools indicated less

than adequate conditions for life safety features,

 

18 This questionnaire item is drawn from the 1994 GAO study. The

previous section of this report discussed types of onsite buildings

(original buildings, attached and/or detached permanent additions,

and temporary buildings). This section of the report discusses nine

different building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing) of those onsite

buildings. While the overall condition of building types may be

adequate or better, the condition of individual building features

may be less than adequate.

19 As in the previous section, the ratings of excellent, good, and

adequate have been combined into a rating of adequate or better,

and ratings of fair, poor, and replace have been combined into a

rating of less than adequate.

roofs, and electric power, and about a quarter of

schools reported less than adequate conditions for

plumbing, and for exterior walls, finishes,

windows, and doors. Heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning systems were reported to be in less

than adequate condition at 29 percent of schools.

The condition of various building features

showed some variation by school characteristics20

(table 4). Schools with the highest concentration

of poverty (as defined by the percentage of

students eligible for free or reduced-price school

lunch) were more likely than schools with the

lowest concentration of poverty to report that

their roofs were in less than adequate condition

(32 percent versus 18 percent). Schools with

more than 50 percent minority enrollment were

more likely than schools with lower minority

enrollment to indicate that their electric power

was in less than adequate condition (32 percent

compared with 18 percent and 19 percent), and

were more likely than schools with 21 to 50

percent minority enrollment to report that their

exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors were

in less than adequate condition (29 percent

compared with 17 percent). Schools in the West

 

20 As noted previously, differences that may appear large may not be

statistically significant, due in part to the relatively large standard

errors surrounding the estimates (because of the small sample size)

and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. These are discussed

further in appendix A.
14

Table 4.—Percent of public schools rating the condition of building features as less than adequate, by

school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least

one

building

feature is

in less than

adequate

condition

Roofs

Framing,

floors,

foundations

Exterior

walls,

finishes,

windows,

doors

Interior

finishes,

trim

Plumbing

Heating,

ventilation,

air conditioning

Electric

power

Electrical

lighting

Life safety

features

All public schools........... 50 22 14 24 17 25 29 22 17 20

School instructional level

Elementary school .......... 49 22 14 23 17 24 28 21 17 19

High school .................... 56 26 16 27 20 28 34 25 19 22

Combined....................... 54 18 15 31 14 25 34 20 20 29

School enrollment size

Less than 300.................. 55 24 19 31 20 28 29 23 19 26

300 to 599....................... 50 22 12 21 16 27 32 21 17 21

600 or more .................... 49 22 14 23 18 20 26 22 16 16

Locale

Central city..................... 56 23 12 27 20 28 30 26 18 21

Urban fringe/large town . 44 19 13 21 16 21 27 21 15 17

Rural/small town ............ 52 25 17 25 17 26 31 19 20 23

Region

Northeast........................ 39 16 10 18 14 19 22 14 10 11

Midwest.......................... 51 20 15 28 15 25 27 19 15 19

South .............................. 51 25 15 22 16 24 28 22 20 22

West ............................... 57 27 16 26 25 32 40 32 22 27

Percent minority

enrollment

5 percent or less.............. 48 21 15 26 14 22 28 18 16 18

6 to 20 percent................ 49 25 15 23 17 26 29 18 16 22

21 to 50 percent.............. 46 17 12 17 14 23 25 19 15 18

More than 50 percent...... 59 28 14 29 24 29 34 32 23 24

Percent of students in

school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent....... 45 18 14 21 17 23 28 18 14 16

20 to 39 percent.............. 45 21 11 21 14 23 26 20 15 18

40 to 69 percent.............. 53 22 16 25 14 23 29 21 18 22

70 percent or more.......... 63 32 17 30 26 32 35 30 24 27

NOTE: Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of Public

School Facilities, 1999.
15

were more likely than schools in the Northeast

and Midwest to indicate that their interior finishes

and trim and their electric power were in less than

adequate condition (25 percent compared with 14

percent and 15 percent, and 32 percent compared

with 14 percent and 19 percent, respectively).

Schools in the West were more likely than

schools in the Northeast to report that their

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems

and their life safety features (e.g., sprinklers, fire

alarms) were in less than adequate condition (40

percent compared with 22 percent, and 27 percent

compared with 11 percent, respectively).

Looking across all of the building features, 50

percent of the schools overall reported that at

least one of the nine building features at their

school was in less than adequate condition (table

4). This translates into about 39,500 schools

reporting at least one less than adequate building

feature (not shown in tables). Schools in central

cities were more likely than schools in urban

fringe areas and large towns to report at least one

building feature as less than adequate (56 percent

compared with 44 percent; table 4). Schools in

the West were more likely than schools in the

Northeast to report at least one building feature as

less than adequate (57 percent compared with 39

percent). Schools with the highest concentration

of poverty (defined here as 70 percent or more of

the students eligible for free or reduced-price

school lunch) were more likely to report that at

least one building feature was in less than

adequate condition than were schools with 20 to

39 percent or schools with less than 20 percent of

their students eligible for free or reduced-price

school lunch (63 percent versus 45 percent each).

Among the 50 percent of schools with at least one

of the nine building features in less than adequate

condition, an average of 3.8 building features

were reported to be in less than adequate

condition (not shown in tables). Figure 1 shows

the percentage distribution of the number of

building features in less than adequate condition

at these schools. About a quarter of these schools

reported that one building feature was in less than

adequate condition, 16 percent reported two

building features in this condition, and 15 percent

reported three building features in less than

adequate condition. At the other end of the

distribution, 7 percent of these schools reported

that all nine building features were in less than

adequate condition.21

Costs to Bring Schools Into Good

Overall Condition

The questionnaire also asked for an estimate of

what would probably be the total cost of all

repairs, renovations, and modernizations required

to put the school’s onsite buildings in good

overall condition.22 Schools that reported on the

questionnaire that the condition of any type of

building (original building, permanent addition,

or temporary building) or any building feature

(e.g., roofs, plumbing, electric power) was less

than good (i.e., any type of building or building

feature was given a rating of adequate, fair, poor,

or replace) provided information about the cost of

the needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations.23

Overall, 76 percent of schools indicated in 1999

that they would need to spend some money on

repairs, renovations, or modernizations to bring

the school into good overall condition (table 5).

This translates into approximately 59,400 schools

needing to spend money on repairs, renovations,

or modernizations to put the school into good

overall condition (not shown in tables). Schools

located in central cities were more likely to need

to spend money than were schools in urban fringe

 

21 GAO reported for 1994 that about 60 percent of schools reported

at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, and

three-quarters of those schools had more than one building feature

in less than adequate condition (U.S. GAO 1995a).

22 See exhibit 1 for the definition associated with good condition.

23 The wording of the cost item on the questionnaire was taken from

the 1994 GAO study. However, the GAO study asked about the

condition of the types of onsite buildings, followed by the question

about the cost to bring the onsite buildings into good overall

condition. The question about the condition of various building

features was asked several pages later in the GAO study. Thus,

even though the wording of the cost question was the same in the

GAO and FRSS studies, the two studies may include costs for

different things, since respondents to the GAO study were not

prompted to include costs associated with building features. See

appendix A for information about the 1994 GAO cost estimate and

further discussion of comparability issues for the cost estimates

between the 1994 GAO and 1999 FRSS studies.
16

Figure 1.—Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one building feature in less than

adequate condition according to the number of building features that are in less than

adequate condition: 1999

24

16 15

9 10

7 6 7 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of building features in less than adequate condition

Percent

NOTE: Percentages are based on the 50 percent of schools with at least one building feature in less than adequate condition. Percentages may

not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

areas or large towns (81 percent compared with

70 percent; table 5). Schools in the West were

more likely to report the need to spend money

than were schools in the South or in the Northeast

(83 percent compared with 73 and 70 percent,

respectively).24 For schools that indicated the

need to spend money to bring the school into

good overall condition, the total amount needed

by all schools was estimated to be approximately

$127 billion (not shown in tables). The average

dollar amount for schools needing to spend

money was about $2.2 million per school (not

shown in tables).

 

24 Other differences that may appear large are not statistically

significant. This is due in part to the relatively large standard

errors surrounding the estimates (because of the small sample size)

and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. See appendix A for a

discussion of these issues.

The average cost per student of repairs,

renovations, and modernizations to put schools

into good overall condition also is shown in table

5. The average cost per student across all public

schools, including those that did not need to

spend money to put the school into good overall

condition, was $2,900. Among the 76 percent of

schools that reported needing to spend money to

put the school into good overall condition, the

average cost per student was $3,800. Apparent

differences in cost per student by school

characteristics were not statistically significant.25

 

25 Because of the large standard errors surrounding the estimates of

cost per student, differences that may appear large are not

statistically significant.
17

Table 5.—Percent of public schools reporting the need to spend money on repairs, renovations, and

modernizations to bring the school into good overall condition, and the cost per student

of the repairs, renovations, and modernizations, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Percent of schools

reporting needing to spend

Cost per student1 Cost per student at schools

needing to spend money2

All public schools........................................ 76 $2,900 $3,800

School instructional level

Elementary school....................................... 75 2,500 3,500

High school ................................................. 79 3,400 4,300

Combined.................................................... 83 5,400 6,100

School enrollment size

Less than 300 .............................................. 82 3,900 4,800

300 to 599 ................................................... 74 3,300 4,600

600 or more ................................................. 74 2,500 3,300

Locale

Central city.................................................. 81 2,900 3,500

Urban fringe/large town .............................. 70 2,600 3,800

Rural/small town ......................................... 78 3,300 4,400

Region

Northeast..................................................... 70 3,800 5,300

Midwest ...................................................... 78 2,900 3,800

South ........................................................... 73 2,200 3,100

West ............................................................ 83 3,200 3,900

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less........................................... 74 3,300 4,900

6 to 20 percent............................................. 74 2,400 3,200

21 to 50 percent........................................... 73 3,100 4,200

More than 50 percent .................................. 82 2,700 3,200

Percent of students in school eligible for

free or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent.................................... 73 2,900 4,100

20 to 39 percent........................................... 73 2,800 3,900

40 to 69 percent........................................... 77 3,000 3,900

70 percent or more ...................................... 84 2,600 3,200

1Cost calculation based on all public schools.

2Cost calculation based on the 76 percent of public schools that reported needing to spend money to put the school into good overall condition.

NOTE: The cost per student has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
18

Sources of Cost Estimates

The questionnaire also asked for the sources of

the cost estimates for the needed repairs,

renovations, and modernizations. Respondents

could indicate more than one source for their cost

estimate.26 Among the 76 percent of schools that

reported needing to spend money, 59 percent

reported that the estimate was at least partially

based upon the best professional judgment of the

respondent, 42 percent indicated that the estimate

was at least partially based upon a capital

improvement or facilities master plan, schedule,

or budget, and 39 percent indicated that the

estimate was at least partially based upon

facilities assessments or inspections performed by

a licensed professional in the past 3 years (table

6). Approximately one-quarter of the schools (27

percent) indicated that the estimate was at least

partially based on repair, renovation, or

modernization work currently under way or under

contract. Finally, 16 percent of respondents

indicated that the estimated cost was at least

partially based upon the opinions of other school

district administrators, and 4 percent indicated

other sources of the estimates.

The sources of the cost estimates were also

examined by whether the cost estimate for the

repairs, renovations, and modernizations was

based on professional judgment and opinions

only, on written documents only, or on a

combination of these types of sources.27 Overall,

58 percent of schools needing to spend money

based their cost estimate only on professional

judgment and opinions, 36 percent based it on

written documents only, and 7 percent used a

 

26 This questionnaire item is from the 1994 GAO study. However,

GAO does not report data from this question in any of their

reports.

27 The category of professional judgment and opinions only included

the categories of best professional judgment of the respondent and

opinions of other district or school administrators. The category of

written documents only included the categories of capital

improvement/facilities master plan, schedule or budget, facilities

inspections/assessments performed within the last 3 years by

licensed professionals, and repair/renovation, modernization work

already being performed and/or contracted for. The category of

combination of types of sources included using at least one source

that was professional judgment or opinion and at least one source

that was a written document.

combination of these types of sources (table 7).

The estimated average dollar amount for schools

needing to spend money varied by the source of

the cost estimate. Schools at which the cost

estimate was based on written documents only

had a higher average cost per school for the

repairs, renovations, and modernizations than did

schools at which the cost estimate was based on

professional judgment or opinions only

($3,202,000 compared with $1,497,000). One

possible explanation for this is that respondents

for schools at which the cost estimate was based

on professional judgment or opinions only have

underestimated the likely cost of the repairs,

renovations, and modernizations. Another

possible explanation is that schools that need

more extensive repair, renovation, or

modernization (and thus would need to spend

more money) are more likely than schools that

need less extensive work to have obtained written

documents that show what the likely cost of the

work will be.
19

Table 6.—Percent of public schools indicating the sources of cost estimates for all repairs, renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into good

overall condition: 1999

Source of cost estimate Percent

Best professional judgment of the respondent.......................................................................................... 59

Capital improvement/facilities master plan, schedule, or budget ............................................................. 42

Facilities inspections/assessments performed within the last 3 years by licensed professionals .............. 39

Repair/renovation, modernization work already being performed and/or contracted for......................... 27

Opinions of other district or school administrators.................................................................................. 16

Other sources........................................................................................................................................... 4

NOTE: Based on the 76 percent of schools that reported needing to spend money to put the school into good overall condition. Percentages sum

to more than 100 percent because a school could indicate more than one source for its cost estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Table 7.—Percentage distribution of public schools indicating the type of source used for cost

estimates and the average cost per school for all repairs, renovations, and

modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into good overall

condition: 1999

Types of source for cost estimate Percent of schools Average cost per school

Professional judgment and opinions only1 .................................................................... 58 $1,497,000

Written documents only2 ............................................................................................... 36 3,202,000

Combination of types of sources3.................................................................................. 7 2,284,000

1The category of professional judgment and opinions only included the categories of best professional judgment of the respondent and opinions of

other district or school administrators.

2The category of written documents only included the categories of capital improvement/facilities master plan, schedule or budget, facilities

inspections/assessments performed within the last 3 years by licensed professionals, and repair/renovation, modernization work already being

performed and/or contracted for.

3The category of combination of types of sources included using at least one source that was professional judgment or opinion and at least one

source that was a written document.

NOTE: Based on the 76 percent of schools that reported needing to spend money to put the school into good overall condition. Percentages may

not sum to 100 because of rounding. The average cost per school was rounded to the nearest thousand.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
20
21

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Environmental conditions, such as heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning, are important

aspects of the day-to-day environment for

students. This chapter provides information

about satisfaction with various environmental

conditions in public school buildings. The

conditions rated included lighting, heating,

ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics or noise

control, and physical security of buildings. Also

included is information about satisfaction with the

flexibility of instructional space at the school and

the energy efficiency of the school. In addition,

information is provided about the status and

satisfaction with air conditioning in various areas

of the school, with particular focus on air

conditioning in classrooms. Information is also

provided about school closures due to facilities

problems.

Satisfaction with Environmental

Conditions

The questionnaire asked for ratings of how

satisfactory or unsatisfactory six different

environmental conditions were in the school’s

onsite buildings.28 While the majority of public

schools reported that the individual environ-

 

28 This questionnaire item was drawn from the 1994 GAO study.

The FRSS questionnaire referred to these conditions as

environmental factors, following the wording of the GAO

questionnaire. The list of environmental factors on the

questionnaire also included flexibility of instructional space and

energy efficiency. Information about these two factors is

presented separately. Some of the building features for which

schools were asked to rate the physical condition on the

questionnaire (e.g., heating, lighting; see chapter 2 of this report)

are related to the environmental factors for which schools were

asked to rate their satisfaction. Both items on the FRSS

questionnaire were taken directly from the GAO questionnaire,

with the intention of providing information about change in the

condition of public school facilities between 1994 and 1999.

Information from the GAO study is provided as contextual

information only, rather than as statistical comparisons. Standard

errors are not available for the GAO data, and exact point

estimates are also missing for some comparative statements from

the GAO reports.

mental conditions in their schools were

satisfactory, a sizable minority (ranging from 12

percent to 26 percent) reported that various

individual environmental conditions were

unsatisfactory29 (table 8). Ventilation was rated

as unsatisfactory by more schools than any other

environmental condition (26 percent). Ratings of

other environmental conditions included 12

percent of schools reporting they were unsatisfied

with lighting conditions, and about a fifth of

schools indicating they were unsatisfied with

heating, indoor air quality, acoustics or noise

control, and the physical security of buildings.

Satisfaction with individual environmental

conditions showed some variation by school

characteristics, with three of the six

environmental conditions showing significant

differences30 (table 8). For ventilation, a larger

percentage of medium than large schools were

unsatisfied (31 percent compared with 21

percent), and schools in the West were more

likely to be unsatisfied than schools in the South

(37 percent versus 19 percent). For acoustics or

noise control, more medium than large schools

reported being unsatisfied (19 percent compared

with 12 percent), and schools in rural areas and

small towns were more unsatisfied than schools

in urban fringe areas and large towns (21 percent

versus 13 percent). Physical security of buildings

was perceived as more unsatisfactory by high

schools than by elementary schools (26 percent

versus 17 percent), and schools in rural areas and

 

29 The ratings of satisfactory and very satisfactory have been

combined into a rating of satisfactory, and the ratings of

unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory have been combined into a

rating of unsatisfactory. The satisfaction ratings do not have the

same kind of explicit definitions that the ratings used for the

condition of buildings and building features have. Those ratings

(excellent, good, adequate, fair, poor, replace) were defined to

indicate the amount of maintenance and repair required.

30 As noted previously, differences that may appear large may not be

statistically significant, due in part to the relatively large standard

errors surrounding the estimates (because of the small sample size)

and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. These are discussed

further in appendix A.
22

Table 8.—Percent of public schools rating the condition of environmental factors as unsatisfactory,

by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least one

environmental

factor is in

unsatisfactory

condition

Lighting Heating Ventilation Indoor air

quality

Acoustics

or noise

control

Physical

security of

buildings

All public schools........................... 43 12 17 26 18 18 20

School instructional level

Elementary school .......................... 41 12 16 25 18 17 17

High school .................................... 48 12 19 31 18 20 26

Combined....................................... 65 19 28 35 19 26 38

School enrollment size

Less than 300.................................. 45 12 16 27 19 22 21

300 to 599....................................... 46 14 18 31 20 19 21

600 or more .................................... 39 10 16 21 16 12 18

Locale

Central city..................................... 47 14 18 30 22 20 14

Urban fringe/large town ................. 37 11 16 20 13 13 17

Rural/small town ............................ 47 12 16 29 21 21 26

Region

Northeast........................................ 37 9 13 23 13 16 19

Midwest.......................................... 47 13 14 29 22 19 22

South .............................................. 39 11 15 19 15 16 19

West ............................................... 49 14 27 37 22 20 18

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less.............................. 45 11 14 29 20 20 26

6 to 20 percent................................ 41 11 20 24 16 17 17

21 to 50 percent.............................. 37 9 16 24 17 13 17

More than 50 percent...................... 48 16 18 27 20 20 16

Percent of students in school eligible

for free or reduced-price school

lunch

Less than 20 percent....................... 38 8 17 24 14 14 17

20 to 39 percent.............................. 42 13 15 29 20 18 22

40 to 69 percent.............................. 41 10 18 24 17 15 21

70 percent or more.......................... 55 19 18 29 24 25 17

NOTE: Ratings of unsatisfactory include the ratings of unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

small towns were more unsatisfied with physical

security than schools in central cities and in urban

fringe areas and large towns (26 percent

compared with 14 percent and 17 percent).

Overall, 43 percent of the schools reported that at

least one of the six environmental factors was in

unsatisfactory condition (table 8). This translates

into about 33,800 schools reporting at least one

unsatisfactory environmental condition (not

shown in tables). Schools in rural areas and small
23

towns were more likely than schools in urban

fringe areas and large towns to report that at least

one of their environmental conditions was

unsatisfactory (47 percent compared with 37

percent; table 8). The apparent difference

between schools in central cities and schools

located in urban fringe areas and large towns is

not statistically significant on this measure, due in

part to the relatively large standard error for

schools in central cities. Schools with the highest

concentration of poverty (defined as 70 percent or

more of the students eligible for free or reducedprice school lunch) were more likely to report that

at least one environmental condition was

unsatisfactory than were schools with the lowest

concentration of poverty (55 percent compared

with 38 percent).

Among the 43 percent of schools with at least one

of the six environmental conditions reported as

unsatisfactory, an average of 2.6 environmental

conditions were reported to be unsatisfactory (not

shown in tables). Figure 2 shows the percentage

distribution of the number of environmental

factors in unsatisfactory condition at these

schools. About a third of these schools (32

percent) reported that one environmental

condition was unsatisfactory, and an additional 30

percent reported two environmental conditions as

unsatisfactory. At the other end of the

distribution, 8 percent of the schools reported that

all six environmental factors were in

unsatisfactory condition.31

Energy Efficiency and the Flexibility

of Instructional Space

The questionnaire also asked about satisfaction

with the energy efficiency of the school, and with

the flexibility of instructional space at the school.

About a third of the schools (32 percent) were

unsatisfied with the energy efficiency of the

school, and 38 percent were unsatisfied with the

flexibility of instructional space at the school (not

 

31 GAO reported for 1994 that about 50 percent of schools reported

that at least one of the six environmental conditions was

unsatisfactory, and 33 percent reported multiple unsatisfactory

conditions (U.S. GAO 1995a).

shown in tables). These ratings did not vary

significantly by school characteristics.32

Air Conditioning

The questionnaire asked about the status of air

conditioning in classrooms, administrative

offices, computer labs, media centers, and “other

areas” of the school. Respondents were asked to

indicate whether the area did not have air

conditioning because it was not needed, the area

did not have air conditioning but it was needed, or

that some, most, or all of the area was airconditioned. Air conditioning was not available

but needed by roughly a quarter of the schools for

their classrooms (24 percent), media centers (23

percent), and other school areas (28 percent), by

17 percent of schools for their computer labs, and

by 10 percent for their administrative offices

(table 9). About half (49 percent) of the schools

indicated that all of their classrooms were airconditioned, about 60 percent indicated that all of

their administrative offices, computer labs, and

media centers were air-conditioned, and 36

percent indicated that all of the other areas of the

school were air-conditioned. An additional 10

percent of schools indicated that some classrooms

were air-conditioned, and 4 percent indicated that

most classrooms were air-conditioned, for a total

of 63 percent of schools indicating that their

classrooms were all or partially air-conditioned

(see tables 9 and 11). A total of 83 percent of

schools reported that their administrative offices

were all or partially air-conditioned.

Air conditioning in classrooms is important in

many areas of the country in terms of the day-today learning environment for students, since more

time is spent in classrooms than in other areas of

the schools, such as computer labs and media

centers. While overall 24 percent of the schools

said that their classrooms were not airconditioned but needed to be, some types of

schools were more likely than others to indicate

 

32 GAO reported for 1994 that 41 percent of schools were unsatisfied

with the energy efficiency of the school, and 54 percent of schools

were unsatisfied with their flexibility of instructional space (U.S.

GAO 1995b).
24

Figure 2.—Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one environmental factor in

unsatisfactory condition according to the number of environmental factors that are in

unsatisfactory condition: 1999

32 30

13

9 8 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of environmental factors in unsatisfactory condition

Percent

NOTE: Percentages are based on the 43 percent of schools with at least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Table 9.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to the status of air conditioning in

various areas of their school buildings: 1999

Area

None airconditioned

because not

needed

None airconditioned,

but needed

Some airconditionedMostly airconditionedAll airconditioned

Classrooms........................................................... 13 24 10 4 49

Administrative offices.......................................... 6 10 12 10 61

Computer labs...................................................... 9 17 8 7 60

Media centers....................................................... 10 23 3 5 59

Other areas........................................................... 15 28 11 9 36

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
25

Table 10.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to the status of air conditioning in

classrooms, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

None airconditioned

because not

needed

None airconditioned,

but needed

Some airconditionedMostly airconditionedAll airconditioned

All public schools............................................. 13 24 10 4 49

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 14 24 9 3 50

High school ...................................................... 8 25 14 6 48

Combined......................................................... 20 36 *3 *11 31

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 17 31 5 6 41

300 to 599 ........................................................ 17 27 9 *2 45

600 or more ...................................................... 6 16 14 5 58

Locale

Central city....................................................... 8 24 10 2 55

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 14 23 11 4 49

Rural/small town .............................................. 16 25 8 5 45

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 35 37 13 *1 14

Midwest ........................................................... 12 40 14 4 30

South ................................................................ *1 3 3 5 88

West ................................................................. 17 26 13 4 40

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 19 32 12 4 34

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 13 30 7 3 47

21 to 50 percent................................................ 10 15 10 6 60

More than 50 percent ....................................... 9 18 9 4 61

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 12 35 12 3 37

20 to 39 percent................................................ 18 22 11 3 46

40 to 69 percent................................................ 14 20 7 4 54

70 percent or more ........................................... 6 17 8 6 63

*Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
26

Table 11.—Percent of public schools with air conditioning in various areas of the school, and the

percentage distribution of those schools according to satisfaction with the condition of

air conditioning in the school areas: 1999

Condition of air conditioning*

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Area

Area is all or

partially airconditioned Total

Very

satisfactory

Satisfactory Total Unsatisfactory

Very

unsatisfactory

Classrooms..................................... 63 84 33 50 16 13 4

Administrative offices.................... 83 85 32 53 15 12 3

Computer labs................................ 74 85 35 50 15 12 3

Media centers................................. 67 87 39 48 13 9 3

Other areas..................................... 56 82 33 49 18 15 3

*Based on schools with air conditioning in that area of the school.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

that this was the situation for their classrooms33

(table 10). Small and medium schools were more

likely to indicate that they needed air

conditioning in their classrooms than were large

schools. Schools in the South were less likely

than schools in any other region to indicate that

their classrooms were not air-conditioned but

needed to be; this is not surprising, given the very

high proportion of schools in the South with airconditioned classrooms. Schools with lower

minority enrollment (20 percent or less minority

enrollment) were generally more likely to indicate

that they needed air conditioning in their

classrooms than were schools with higher

minority enrollments. Schools with the lowest

concentration of poverty (less than 20 percent

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch)

were more likely to report needing air

conditioning in classrooms than were schools

with greater concentrations of poverty.34

 

33 The percentages needing air conditioning are related, of course, to

the percentages that already have air conditioning.

34 It is likely that these seemingly paradoxical differences by

minority enrollment and concentration of poverty in the school are

related to region of the country. Schools with lower minority

enrollment and concentration of poverty are more likely than

schools with higher minority enrollment and concentration of

poverty to be located in the Northeast and Midwest. Schools with

higher minority enrollment and concentration of poverty are more

likely than schools with lower minority enrollment and

concentration of poverty to be located in the South and, to a

somewhat lesser extent, in the West. For example, about threequarters of the schools with the lowest minority enrollment and

about two-thirds of the schools with the lowest concentration of

The questionnaire also asked for ratings of how

satisfactory or unsatisfactory the air conditioning

was in each area of the school that was airconditioned. In general, about 85 percent of the

schools reported that the air conditioning in the

various areas of the school that had air

conditioning was satisfactory or better, with about

a third reporting it as very satisfactory, and about

half reporting it as satisfactory for each area

(table 11). Few schools (3 to 4 percent of those

with air conditioning in a particular area) reported

that they were very unsatisfied with the air

conditioning in that area. Satisfaction with air

conditioning in classrooms, administrative

offices, computer labs, and media centers did not

vary significantly by school characteristics (not

shown in tables).35

 

poverty are located in the Northeast and Midwest. Conversely,

roughly 45 percent of the schools with the highest minority

enrollment and with the highest concentration of poverty are

located in the South. Schools in the Northeast and Midwest were

more likely than schools in the South to indicate that their

classrooms were not air-conditioned but needed to be.

35 GAO reported for 1994 that 51 percent of schools had air

conditioning in classrooms, and 73 percent of schools had air

conditioning in administrative offices (U.S. GAO 1995b). The

item on the GAO questionnaire differed somewhat from the item

on the FRSS questionnaire. The GAO questionnaire asked

whether the school had air conditioning in classrooms,

administrative offices, and/or other areas. It did not ask about

computer labs and media centers, or about the extent of air

conditioning or the need for air conditioning in various areas of the

school. GAO reported for 1994 that about 85 percent of schools

with air conditioning in a particular area reported that it was

satisfactory or very satisfactory.
27

Percent

School Closures Due to Facilities

Problems

Information was also obtained about the number

of instructional days, if any, the school was

closed because of inadequacies or problems with

facilities during the 1998-99 school year.36 Most

 

36 A school closure on an instructional day does not necessarily

result in lost instructional time for students. There are a number of

strategies that schools can use to avoid losing instructional time,

including adding instructional days during school holidays or at

the end of the school year, or holding classes temporarily in other

space, such as a community college or another school. However,

these strategies may not be easy to implement. It should also be

noted that school facilities problems may arise due to situations

beyond the control of the school. Comments on some of the

questionnaires mentioned closures due to things such as damage

caused by storms or fires.

schools (96 percent) were not closed during any

instructional days because of inadequacies or

problems with facilities (not shown in tables).

For the 4 percent of schools that reported

closures, the number of days ranged from 1 to 9,

with 60 percent of those with a closure reporting

being closed for one instructional day, and

another 30 percent reporting being closed for two

or three instructional days (figure 3).

Figure 3.—Percentage distribution of public schools with facilities-related closures according to the

number of instructional days the school was closed due to inadequacies or problems

with facilities during the 1998-99 school year

*Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

NOTE: Percentages are based on the 4 percent of schools that reported closures on any instructional days because of inadequacies or problems

with facilities during the 1998-99 school year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

60

30

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 day 2 or 3 days 5 to 9 days

*
28
29

4. SCHOOL PLANS FOR

IMPROVEMENT

The previous chapters in this report portray the

condition of public schools in 1999. However,

the condition of school facilities is continuously

changing. For example, districts may build new

schools or extensively renovate existing schools,

as well as make repairs to existing school

buildings. Some of these activities occur as they

are needed, but many are scheduled in district or

school improvement plans. Conversely, maintenance may be deferred and buildings in need of

repair may fall further into disrepair. Examining

school plans for construction, renovation, repair,

and replacement in the next 2 years provides a

glimpse of the expected condition of school

facilities in the near future.

Written Facilities Plans

One concrete indication of school planning for

facilities improvements is the presence of a

written long-range educational facilities plan. In

1999, 65 percent of public schools had written

long-range facilities plans (table 12). This varied

somewhat by school enrollment size, locale, and

region. Large schools were more likely to report

having written facilities plans than were small

schools (71 percent versus 55 percent). Schools

in central cities were more likely than schools in

rural areas or small towns to have written longrange plans (70 percent versus 59 percent), and

schools in the South were more likely than

schools in the Midwest to have such plans (68

percent versus 56 percent). The apparent

differences in the presence of a written facilities

plan between schools in the Midwest and the

Northeast and West is not statistically significant,

partly due to the relatively large standard errors

for these three estimates.

Plans for Construction

The survey asked whether schools planned to

build new attached and/or detached permanent

additions in the next 2 years. Overall, 20 percent

of schools indicated plans to build new permanent

additions in the next 2 years (table 13). Plans to

build new permanent additions did not vary

significantly by school characteristics, except that

schools in urban fringe areas and large towns

were more likely to report construction plans for

new additions than were schools located in rural

areas and small towns (25 percent compared with

17 percent). Note that differences that appear

large may not be statistically significant due to

relatively large standard errors around the

estimates, or because of the Bonferroni

adjustment to the analyses.

The survey also asked if schools planned to install

new temporary buildings in the next 2 years.

Overall, 10 percent of public schools indicated

that they had such plans (table 13). This means

that approximately 8,100 schools plan to install

new temporary buildings in the next 2 years (not

shown in tables). School plans to install new

temporary buildings varied somewhat based upon

school size, locale, region, and minority

enrollment. Large schools were about three times

more likely than medium or small schools to

indicate plans to install new temporary buildings

(18 percent versus 6 percent). Schools in urban

fringe areas and large towns were more likely to

report plans to install new temporary structures

than were schools in rural areas and small towns

(13 percent versus 7 percent). Schools located in

the South and West were more likely to report

plans to install new temporary buildings in the

next 2 years than were schools located in the

Northeast and Midwest (12 percent and 21

percent compared with 4 percent and 5 percent,

respectively). Finally, schools with minority

enrollments of 21 to 50 percent and more
30

Table 12.—Percent of public schools with a written long-range educational facilities plan for the

school, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic School has written facilities plan

All public schools................................................................................................ 65

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................................................................... 65

High school ......................................................................................................... 65

Combined............................................................................................................ 57

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ...................................................................................................... 55

300 to 599 ........................................................................................................... 65

600 or more ......................................................................................................... 71

Locale

Central city.......................................................................................................... 70

Urban fringe/large town ...................................................................................... 67

Rural/small town ................................................................................................. 59

Region

Northeast............................................................................................................. 69

Midwest .............................................................................................................. 56

South ................................................................................................................... 68

West .................................................................................................................... 68

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................................................................... 61

6 to 20 percent..................................................................................................... 68

21 to 50 percent................................................................................................... 68

More than 50 percent .......................................................................................... 65

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent............................................................................................ 64

20 to 39 percent................................................................................................... 65

40 to 69 percent................................................................................................... 67

70 percent or more .............................................................................................. 64

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
31

Table 13.—Percent of public schools with construction projects planned for the school in the next 2

years, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Build new attached/

detached permanent

additions

Install new temporary

buildings

All public schools.................................................................................. 20 10

School instructional level

Elementary school................................................................................. 19 10

High school ........................................................................................... 23 13

Combined.............................................................................................. 27 *2

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ........................................................................................ 17 6

300 to 599 ............................................................................................. 19 6

600 or more ........................................................................................... 24 18

Locale

Central city............................................................................................ 17 11

Urban fringe/large town ........................................................................ 25 13

Rural/small town ................................................................................... 17 7

Region

Northeast............................................................................................... 16 4

Midwest ................................................................................................ 17 5

South ..................................................................................................... 25 12

West ...................................................................................................... 19 21

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less..................................................................................... 18 6

6 to 20 percent....................................................................................... 21 11

21 to 50 percent..................................................................................... 23 14

More than 50 percent ............................................................................ 19 13

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school

lunch

Less than 20 percent.............................................................................. 23 10

20 to 39 percent..................................................................................... 18 12

40 to 69 percent..................................................................................... 21 10

70 percent or more ................................................................................ 18 9

*Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

than 50 percent were more likely than schools

with minority enrollments of 5 percent or less to

report plans to install new temporary buildings in

the next 2 years (14 percent and 13 percent

compared with 6 percent, respectively).

Plans for Major Repair, Renovation,

or Replacement of Building Features

About half of the schools (51 percent) planned to

make major repairs, renovations, or replacements

to at least one building feature in the next 2 years

(table 14). This means that approximately 39,700
32

Table 14.—Percent of public schools with plans to make at least one major repair, renovation, or

replacement to a building feature in the next 2 years, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least one

major repair,

renovation, or

replacement

planned

Major repair or

renovation

planned

Replacement

planned

All public schools.................................................................................. 51 41 25

School instructional level

Elementary school................................................................................. 49 39 23

High school ........................................................................................... 57 48 28

Combined.............................................................................................. 55 37 35

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ........................................................................................ 45 36 19

300 to 599 ............................................................................................. 52 40 26

600 or more ........................................................................................... 53 45 27

Locale

Central city............................................................................................ 55 48 29

Urban fringe/large town ........................................................................ 50 40 24

Rural/small town ................................................................................... 48 36 22

Region

Northeast............................................................................................... 49 38 27

Midwest ................................................................................................ 48 39 22

South ..................................................................................................... 47 37 23

West ...................................................................................................... 62 52 30

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less..................................................................................... 45 35 19

6 to 20 percent....................................................................................... 51 41 28

21 to 50 percent..................................................................................... 51 40 25

More than 50 percent ............................................................................ 58 49 30

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school

lunch

Less than 20 percent.............................................................................. 52 41 25

20 to 39 percent..................................................................................... 44 36 21

40 to 69 percent..................................................................................... 52 43 25

70 percent or more ................................................................................ 56 46 30

NOTE: Percents in each column are computed across nine building features. Rows do not sum to totals because schools could plan major repairs

or renovations on some features, and plan replacements for other features.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

schools have plans for major repairs, renovations,

or replacements in the next 2 years (not shown in

tables). Overall, 41 percent of schools indicated

plans to complete major repairs or renovations to

at least one building feature in the next 2 years,

and 25 percent planned to replace at least one

building feature during the next 2 years (table

14). Among schools that planned any repair or

renovation activity in the next 2 years, an average

of 2.7 building features were slated for repair or
33

renovation; among schools that planned to replace

any building features, an average of 2.2 features

were planned for replacement in the next 2 years

(not shown in tables). Although plans for

replacement did not vary significantly by school

characteristics, plans for major repair or

renovation varied somewhat by locale and percent

minority enrollment in the school (table 14).37

Schools in central cities were more likely to plan

repairs or renovations than were schools in rural

areas or small towns (48 percent versus 36

percent). In addition, schools with more than 50

percent minority enrollment were more likely

than schools with less than 5 percent minority

enrollment to have plans for repairs or

renovations in the next 2 years (49 percent versus

35 percent).

Plans for repair, renovation, or replacement also

varied based upon the overall condition of the

school. While 46 percent of schools reporting

that all types of onsite buildings were in adequate

or better overall condition planned at least one

repair, renovation, or replacement in the next 2

years, 67 percent of schools with at least one type

of onsite building in less than adequate condition

reported plans to make at least one repair,

renovation, or replacement (figure 4). This

means that one-third of schools with at least one

type of onsite building in less than adequate

condition (approximately 6,300 schools; not

shown in tables) reported no plans for repair,

renovation, or replacement in the next 2 years,

suggesting that the physical condition of those

schools may deteriorate even further in the near

future.

As noted above, although about half of all schools

indicated plans to renovate, repair, or replace at

least one building feature, many of these schools

had plans affecting only a few building features.

For each building feature, the majority of public

schools (75 to 90 percent) had no plans for major

repair, renovation, or replacement (table 15). For

each building feature, between 7 and 17 percent

 

37 Note that differences that may appear large may not be statistically

significant, due in part to the relatively large standard errors

surrounding the estimates (because of the small sample size) and

the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. These are discussed further

in appendix A.

of schools indicated plans to repair or renovate it,

and between 3 and 11 percent of schools reported

plans to replace that building feature.

Plans to repair, renovate, or replace specific

features of school buildings were examined

against the school’s assessment of the condition

of each feature as adequate or better or less than

adequate. 38 In general, schools with adequate or

better building features were more likely than

those with less than adequate features to report

that they had no plans for repair, renovation, or

replacement (table 16). For example, 87 percent

of schools with adequate or better roofs compared

with 36 percent of those with less than adequate

roofs indicated that they had no plans to repair,

renovate, or replace the feature. These differences were consistent for every other building

feature examined in the study—framing, floors,

or foundation; exterior walls, finishes, windows,

or doors; interior finishes or trim; plumbing;

heating, ventilation, or air conditioning; electric

power; electrical lighting; and life safety features.

For every building feature examined except roofs,

50 percent or more of the schools in which a

given feature was in less than adequate condition

indicated that they had no plans to repair,

renovate, or replace that feature in the next 2

years (table 16). Major repairs or renovations

were planned on these features by 19 to 35

percent of schools reporting them as less than

adequate, and replacements were planned by 11

to 20 percent of schools reporting them as less

than adequate. For schools reporting their roofs

to be in less than adequate condition, 36 percent

planned no repair, renovation, or replacement of

the roof, 24 percent planned to make major

repairs or renovations to the roof, and 40 percent

planned to replace it in the next 2 years. Thus,

many schools with building features in less than

adequate condition may experience worsening

conditions in the near future, since they do not

plan to correct the inadequacy within the next 2

years.

 

38 See table 4 for the percent of schools rating the condition of each

building feature as less than adequate.
34

Figure 4.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to whether there are plans to make

major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any building feature in the next 2 years,

by condition of onsite buildings: 1999

NOTE: The condition of all onsite buildings is computed across original buildings, permanent additions, and temporary buildings. Ratings of

adequate or better encompass the ratings of excellent, good, and adequate. Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and

replace. Plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements are computed across nine building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Table 15.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to their plans for major repair,

renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next 2 years: 1999

Feature

No planned repair,

renovation, or

replacement

Major repair or

renovation

Replacement

Roofs.................................................................... 76 13 11

Framing, floors, foundations................................ 90 7 3

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors.............. 80 13 6

Interior finishes, trim ........................................... 82 15 3

Plumbing.............................................................. 83 13 4

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning................... 75 17 9

Electric power...................................................... 81 14 4

Electrical lighting................................................. 83 10 6

Life safety features............................................... 83 10 7

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

46

67

54

33

0

20

40

60

80

100

All types of onsite buildings in

adequate or better condition

At least one type of onsite building

 in less than adequate condition

Percent Plans to make at least one major repair,

renovation, or replacement of a building feature

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or

replacements to building features
35

Table 16.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to school plans for major repair,

renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next 2 years, by condition of

the building feature: 1999

Building feature and condition

No planned repair,

renovation, or

replacement

Major repair or

renovation

Replacement

Roofs

Adequate or better............................................ 87 9 3

Less than adequate ........................................... 36 24 40

Framing, floors, foundation

Adequate or better............................................ 93 5 2

Less than adequate ........................................... 69 19 11

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors

Adequate or better............................................ 89 8 3

Less than adequate ........................................... 53 29 18

Interior finishes, trim

Adequate or better............................................ 88 11 1

Less than adequate ........................................... 54 33 13

Plumbing

Adequate or better............................................ 90 9 1

Less than adequate ........................................... 62 25 13

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Adequate or better............................................ 84 13 4

Less than adequate ........................................... 53 26 20

Electric power

Adequate or better............................................ 90 8 2

Less than adequate ........................................... 50 35 14

Electrical lighting

Adequate or better............................................ 89 8 4

Less than adequate ........................................... 58 23 19

Life safety features

Adequate or better............................................ 90 7 4

Less than adequate ........................................... 56 25 19

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Ratings of adequate or better encompass the

ratings of excellent, good, and adequate. Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
36
37

5. FUNCTIONAL AGE OF SCHOOLS:

CONDITION AND PLANS FOR

IMPROVEMENT

The age of schools is frequently included in

discussions of the state of school facilities, either

as a proxy for condition or as a partial

explanation. For example, older schools are

oftentimes referred to as broken down or in need

of repair, when in fact not all old schools are in

this condition. Additionally, schools that are in

need of repair are often referred to as showing

their age, though in fact not all schools in need of

repair are particularly old. In this chapter,

information about the age of public schools is

presented. Age is then examined in the context of

school condition and plans for repair, renovation,

and replacement of building features.

Determining the Age of Public

Schools

Determining and describing the age of public

schools can be difficult. Many schools have

instructional buildings that have been heavily

renovated in the years since they were built. For

such schools, the year of their last renovation is

often a better index of the school's age than the

year of original construction. In describing

school age, therefore, consideration must be given

to both the year of construction and year of most

recent renovation for schools that have been

renovated. GAO makes a similar point in their

discussion about building age, pointing out that

building age, by itself, is not necessarily the most

significant factor in considering the condition of

schools, and that many older school buildings

continue to have a useful life equivalent to a new

building if they are well maintained and

periodically renovated (U.S. GAO 1995b, 1996).

For this report, a measure of the functional age of

the school is derived and then used to examine

the relationship between school age and the

condition of schools and plans for improvement.

Functional age is based on the year of construction of the main instructional building(s) for

schools that have not experienced any major

renovations since their original construction.

However, for schools that have been renovated

since their construction, the functional age is

based on the year of the most recent major

renovation. In addition, information is presented

in this report about the age of the main

instructional buildings as measured in years since

original construction, and in years since the most

recent renovation.

In 1999, the average age of the main instructional

building(s) of public schools was 40 years, based

on years since original construction (table 17).

Across all schools reporting a major renovation

since initial construction, the renovation had

occurred on average 11 years ago. The average

functional age of schools, as defined above, was

16 years. The average functional age of the

school varied by school enrollment, with small

schools on average older than medium or large

schools (20 years compared with 15 and 14 years,

respectively).

In addition to examining the average age of

schools, schools can also be examined based upon

the distribution of schools across different

functional age groups (figure 5 and table 18).

Overall, about one-third (32 percent) of public

schools had a functional age of less than 5 years,

28 percent had a functional age of 5 to 14 years,

26 percent had a functional age of 15 to 34 years,

and 14 percent had a functional age of 35 years or

more. There was some variation in the functional

age distributions by school enrollment size and

region (table 18). Large schools were more likely
38

Table 17.—Age of public schools based upon years since construction of the main instructional

building(s), years since most recent major renovation, and functional age of the school,

by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Years since

construction

Years since most

recent renovation

Functional age

of the school*

All public schools............................................. 40 11 16

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 40 11 16

High school ...................................................... 40 11 15

Combined......................................................... 41 8 12

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 43 15 20

300 to 599 ........................................................ 42 11 15

600 or more ...................................................... 35 9 14

Locale

Central city....................................................... 42 12 17

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 37 10 14

Rural/small town .............................................. 41 12 16

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 43 13 14

Midwest ........................................................... 44 13 18

South ................................................................ 36 10 15

West ................................................................. 37 8 15

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 42 12 16

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 39 12 15

21 to 50 percent................................................ 35 8 13

More than 50 percent ....................................... 42 11 18

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 38 11 14

20 to 39 percent................................................ 38 11 16

40 to 69 percent................................................ 40 11 14

70 percent or more ........................................... 44 11 19

*Functional age is defined as the age of the school based on the year of the most recent renovation or the year of construction of the main

instructional building(s) if no renovation has occurred.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
39

Percent

Figure 5.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to the functional age of the

school: 1999

NOTE: Functional age is defined as the age of the school based on the year of the most recent renovation or the year of construction of the main

instructional building(s) if no renovation has occurred.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

than small schools to have a functional age of less

than 5 years (37 percent compared with 25

percent), and small schools were more likely than

large schools to have a functional age between 15

and 34 years (35 percent compared with 23

percent). Schools in the South were more likely

than schools in the Midwest to have schools with

a functional age of 5 to 14 years (35 percent

compared with 25 percent), and schools in the

Midwest were more likely than schools in the

Northeast to have a functional age of 35 or more

years (18 percent compared with 8 percent).

Other differences based upon school

characteristics that appear large may not be

statistically significant, due in part to relatively

large standard errors around estimates (due partly

to the sample size) or the Bonferroni adjustment

for multiple comparisons.

Functional Age and Condition of

Schools

It is often assumed that school age and condition

are closely related, with older schools being in

worse condition than newer schools. This

relationship is explored using the functional age

of schools as an indicator of age, and three

indices of school condition: at least one onsite

building in less than adequate condition, at least

one building feature in less than adequate

condition, and at least one environmental factor in

unsatisfactory condition. In general, the survey

data support the assumption that older schools

typically have worse school conditions than

newer schools (figure 6).

Functional age of school

32

28 26

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than

5 years old

5 to 14

years old

15 to 34 

years old

35 or more

years old
40

Table 18.—Percentage distribution of public schools according to the functional age of the school,

by school characteristics: 1999

Functional age of the school

School characteristic Less than

5 years old

5-14 years old 15-34 years old

35 or more

 years old

All public schools............................................. 32 28 26 14

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 30 30 25 15

High school ...................................................... 37 24 29 10

Combined......................................................... 47 15 29 *9

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 25 21 35 20

300 to 599 ........................................................ 32 32 23 13

600 or more ...................................................... 37 28 23 12

Locale

Central city....................................................... 30 27 26 17

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 34 31 23 12

Rural/small town .............................................. 32 26 29 13

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 34 23 34 8

Midwest ........................................................... 32 25 25 18

South ................................................................ 29 35 25 10

West ................................................................. 36 25 21 18

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 33 26 27 13

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 29 32 26 12

21 to 50 percent................................................ 36 33 20 12

More than 50 percent ....................................... 31 22 29 18

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 32 33 24 11

20 to 39 percent................................................ 30 30 25 15

40 to 69 percent................................................ 37 24 28 11

70 percent or more ........................................... 30 23 26 21

*Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

NOTE: Functional age is defined as the age of the school based on the year of the most recent renovation or the year of construction of the main

instructional building(s) if no renovation has occurred. Percentages are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
41

At least one building

feature in less than

adequate condition2

At least one type of onsite

building in less than

adequate condition1

At least one

environmental factor in

unsatisfactory condition3

Figure 6.—Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than adequate

condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or at least one

environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by functional age category: 1999

1

The condition of all onsite buildings is computed across original buildings, permanent additions, and temporary buildings. Ratings of less than

adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

2

The condition of all building features is computed across nine building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing). Ratings of less than adequate encompass

the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

3

The condition of all environmental factors is computed across six environmental factors (e.g., heating, ventilation). Ratings of unsatisfactory

include the ratings of unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory.

NOTE: Functional age is defined as the age of the school based on the year of the most recent renovation or the year of construction of the main

instructional building(s) if no renovation has occurred.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Overall, about one-fourth of all public schools

reported that at least one type of onsite building

was in less than adequate condition (see table 3).

The proportion of schools with at least one type

of onsite building in less than adequate condition

varied somewhat by the functional age of the

school, with older schools generally more likely

than newer schools to report this condition (figure

6). Schools with functional ages of 35 years or

more, and those aged 15 to 34 years, were more

likely to report at least one onsite building in less

than adequate condition than were newer schools

with functional ages of less than 5 years or 5 to

14 years (41 percent and 32 percent versus 14

percent and 19 percent, respectively).

Another indicator of poor school condition is the

assessment of building features as less than

adequate. Half of the schools reported at least

one building feature in less than adequate

condition (see table 4). As with the pattern for

onsite buildings, the proportion of schools
42

indicating less than adequate condition for at least

one building feature varied somewhat by the

functional age of the school, with older schools

generally more likely than newer schools to

report this condition (figure 6). About threefourths (77 percent) of schools with functional

ages of 35 years or more, and 61 percent of

schools aged 15 to 34 years, indicated less than

adequate condition for at least one building

feature, compared with 41 percent for schools

with functional ages of 5 to 14 years and 39

percent for those aged less than 5 years.

The final indicator of school condition used in

this report is satisfaction with the condition of six

environmental factors. Forty-three percent of the

schools reported that at least one environmental

factor was unsatisfactory (see table 8).39 The

proportion of schools reporting at least one

unsatisfactory environmental factor differed

somewhat by the school’s functional age, with

older schools generally more likely to report this

condition than newer schools (figure 6). About

two-thirds of the schools aged 35 years or more,

and about half of the schools aged 15 to 34 years,

reported at least one unsatisfactory environmental

factor, compared with 34 percent each for schools

with functional ages of less than 5 years or from 5

to 14 years.

Functional Age and Plans for

Repair, Renovation, and

Replacement

As schools age, they often require repairs or

renovations. Overall, about half (51 percent) of

all public schools planned at least one major

repair, renovation, or replacement of a building

feature in the next 2 years (see table 14). In

addition, as schools age, more effort may be

invested in maintaining them (of course, some

districts may opt to replace rather than maintain

an aging school). Thus, the functional age of

schools might be expected to make a difference to

whether schools have plans for a major repair,

 

39 While condition of buildings and building features are reported as

less than adequate, the environmental factors are reported as

unsatisfactory.

renovation, or replacement of building features in

the near future. This idea is partially supported

by the survey data (figure 7). Schools with a

functional age of 15 to 34 years were more likely

to report that they had plans for at least one major

repair, renovation, or replacement of a building

feature than were newer schools with functional

ages of less than 5 years or 5 to 14 years (61

percent versus 49 percent and 40 percent,

respectively). However, the oldest schools (with

a functional age of 35 years or more) did not

differ statistically from schools with functional

ages of less than 5 years or 15 to 34 years in

reporting plans for at least one major repair,

renovation, or replacement of a building feature.
43

Figure 7.—Percentage distribution of public schools in each category of functional age by whether

there are plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any building

feature in the next 2 years: 1999

49

40

61

56

51

60

39

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than 5 years 5-14 years 15-34 years 35 years or more

Functional age of school

Percent Plans to make at least one major repair,

renovation, or replacement of a building

feature

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or

replacements to building features

NOTE: Functional age is defined as the age of the school based on the year of the most recent renovation or the year of construction of the main

instructional building(s) if no renovation has occurred. Plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements are computed across nine

building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
44
45

6. OVERCROWDING

Overcrowding occurs when the number of

students enrolled in the school is larger than the

number of students the school is designed to

accommodate. When overcrowding occurs, it

may contribute to the wear and tear on schools.

This chapter provides information about the

extent of overcrowding in public schools and the

relationship between overcrowding and school

condition. Information is also provided about

schools' uses of various scheduling and space

practices that are sometimes used to reduce

overcrowding within the school.

Extent of Overcrowding

One estimate of overcrowding is the degree to

which school enrollments exceed the number of

students the school is designed to accommodate.40

The survey asked for the number of students

enrolled in the school and the number of students

the school was designed to serve, excluding space

provided by portables and other temporary

instructional space.41 Using these two numbers, a

proportion was calculated indicating the degree to

which enrollment exceeds the capacity of the

 

40 Although overcrowding in schools is a frequent topic of

discussion, particularly in the popular press, there have been no

systematic and universally accepted measures of overcrowding. In

the 1994 study, GAO attempted to measure overcrowding by

collecting information about the number and total square feet of

space in original buildings, permanent additions, and temporary

buildings. GAO did not consider this attempt successful, and the

data from these measures were not included in any of their reports.

In a search of the overcrowding literature, we found that most

measures consisted of subjective, self-report questions, such as “Is

this school overcrowded?” For this study, we developed a

measure based on the ratio of actual enrollment to building

capacity.

41 The measure excluded capacity provided by temporary buildings

and other temporary instructional space because these are often

used to provide additional capacity for the school when

overcrowding occurs. Including temporary buildings and

instructional space would have obscured overcrowding at schools

that use these to provide additional capacity for the school when

the school enrollment exceeds the capacity of the permanent

buildings and space. This decision was made during the survey

development process in consultation with GAO staff who had

worked on the 1994 study.

permanent buildings and instructional space using

the following formula:

X= [(total student enrollment) – (capacity

of permanent instructional buildings

and space)] / (capacity of permanent

instructional buildings and space).

Using this formula, schools with enrollments

within 5 percent of the capacity of the permanent

instructional buildings and space were considered

neither underenrolled nor overcrowded.42 When

the value of the proportion was greater than 5

percent and negative, student enrollment was

considered less than the building's capacity, and

the school was considered underenrolled. When

the value of the proportion was over 5 percent

and positive, the enrollment exceeded the

building's capacity, and the school was

considered overcrowded (or overenrolled). The

degree of underenrollment or overcrowding was

indicated by the magnitude of the absolute value

of the ratio.

Overall, about one-quarter (26 percent) of public

schools had enrollments within 5 percent of the

capacity of their permanent instructional

buildings and space (figure 8 and table 19). Onethird (33 percent) of schools had enrollments that

were 6 to 25 percent below their capacity, and 19

percent of schools had enrollments that were

more than 25 percent below their capacity. At the

other end of the spectrum, approximately 14

percent of schools had enrollments that were 6 to

25 percent greater than the capacity of their

permanent instructional buildings and space, and

8 percent had enrollments that exceeded their

permanent capacity by more than 25 percent.

Thus, approximately half of schools were

underenrolled, about a quarter were near their

 

42 An interval was used rather than an exact point estimate match to

indicate whether a school was underenrolled or overcrowded, since

enrollment always fluctuates slightly at schools, and a small

proportion of students above the building's capacity would be

unlikely to severely strain the capacity of the school.
46

Figure 8.—Percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are underenrolled, at

capacity, or overcrowded: 1999

1

“Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by more than

5 percent.

2

“Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space by

more than 5 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

capacity, and about a quarter overcrowded based

on the capacity of their permanent instructional

buildings and space. This translates into about

40,500 schools that were underenrolled, 20,400

schools at their capacity, and 17,400 schools that

were overcrowded (not shown in tables).

The relationship between enrollment and building

capacity was examined against various school

characteristics (table 19). The proportion of

schools that were neither underenrolled nor

overcrowded (i.e., schools that had enrollments

within 5 percent of their capacity) differed

somewhat by the school’s instructional level and

enrollment size. For instance, high schools were

less likely than elementary schools to have

enrollments within 5 percent of their capacity (28

percent versus 17 percent). In addition, small

schools were less likely than medium and large

schools to indicate that they had enrollments

within 5 percent of their capacity (16 percent

versus 29 percent and 30 percent, respectively).

Schools with enrollments that were 25 percent or

more below their capacity might be considered

severely underenrolled. The proportion of

schools reporting enrollments that were 25

percent or more below their capacity varied by

Percent

Underenrolled

by more than

25 percent1

Underenrolled

by 6 to 25

percent1

Enrollment

within 5 percent

of capacity

Overcrowded by

6 to 25 percent2

Overcrowded by

more than

25 percent2

19

33

26

14

8

0

20

40

60

80

100
47

Table 19.—Percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are underenrolled, at

capacity, or overcrowded, by school characteristics: 1999

Underenrolled1 Overcrowded2

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............................................. 19 33 26 14 8

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 17 31 28 15 8

High school ...................................................... 21 43 17 11 8

Combined......................................................... 33 21 31 9

3

6

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 41 30 16 10 4

300 to 599 ........................................................ 15 37 29 14 5

600 or more ...................................................... 8 31 30 18 14

Locale

Central city....................................................... 16 33 24 15 11

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 12 36 28 17 8

Rural/small town .............................................. 27 30 26 11 6

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 18 39 27 11 4

Midwest ........................................................... 21 39 26 10 5

South ................................................................ 17 30 26 18 8

West ................................................................. 16 26 26 18 15

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 23 38 23 12 4

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 11 38 26 16 8

21 to 50 percent................................................ 19 30 27 18 6

More than 50 percent ....................................... 18 24 30 13 15

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 15 38 24 16 6

20 to 39 percent................................................ 19 34 26 13 8

40 to 69 percent................................................ 15 33 29 16 7

70 percent or more ........................................... 27 26 24 12 12

1

“Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent buildings and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by more than 5

percent.

2

“Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space by

more than 5 percent.

3 Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
48

enrollment size, with the likelihood of being

severely underenrolled decreasing with the

school’s enrollment size (table 19). In addition,

schools located in rural areas or small towns were

more likely than those in central cities and urban

fringe areas or large towns to be underenrolled by

more than 25 percent of their capacity (27 percent

versus 16 percent and 12 percent, respectively). 43

The proportion of schools experiencing severe

overcrowding (i.e., where enrollments exceeded

capacity by more than 25 percent) differed

somewhat by enrollment size, geographic region,

and percent minority enrollment in the school

(table 19).44 Large schools were more likely than

small and medium schools to be overcrowded by

more than 25 percent of their capacity (14 percent

versus 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively).

Similarly, schools in the West were more likely

than those in the Northeast or Midwest to be

severely overcrowded (15 percent versus 4

percent and 5 percent, respectively). In addition,

schools with more than 50 percent minority

enrollment were more likely to report being

severely overcrowded than were schools with 21

to 50 percent minority enrollment and those with

5 percent or less minority enrollment (15 percent

versus 6 percent and 4 percent, respectively).

Together these data suggest that the majority of

schools are either underenrolled or within 5

percent of their permanent capacity. School

overcrowding, when it occurs, is present across

all school characteristics, but more severe

overcrowding (i.e., enrollments exceeding capacity by more than 25 percent) is more evident

among schools with particular characteristics (see

above). While potential reasons for this

overcrowding were not explored in the survey,

changes in public school enrollment growth may

contribute to overcrowding. According to a 1999

 

43 Note that differences that may appear large may not be statistically

significant, due in part to the relatively large standard errors

surrounding the estimates (because of the small sample size) and

the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. These are discussed further

in appendix A.

44 Some of the differences that may appear large may not be

statistically significant due to the relatively large standard errors

surrounding the estimates (in part because of the small sample

size) and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. See appendix A

for a more detailed discussion.

report by the U.S. Department of Education

(1999a), the West and the South led the nation in

school enrollment growth, and cities and suburbs

both experienced substantial school enrollment

growth in the last 10 years. Enrollment growth in

the West was particularly notable, increasing 26

percent from 1989 to 1999. During this time

period, public school enrollment grew by 16

percent in the South, 14 percent in the Northeast,

and 10 percent in the Midwest.

Overcrowding and School Condition

The work of Kozol (1991) and others suggests

that in some public schools, overcrowding and

crumbling buildings go hand in hand. According

to this view, schools overburdened by too many

students are likely to experience more wear and

tear to their facilities. To examine the

relationship between overcrowding and school

condition, schools in this study were classified as

being underenrolled, within 5 percent of their

capacity, or overcrowded.

As noted earlier, 24 percent of all public schools

reported at least one type of onsite building to be

in less than adequate condition (see table 3). This

percentage varied based upon the relationship

between enrollment and capacity within the

school (figure 9). Schools that were overcrowded

were about twice as likely as schools that were

underenrolled or within 5 percent of their

capacity to indicate that they have at least one

type of onsite building in less than adequate

condition (43 percent versus 18 percent and 19

percent, respectively). Similarly, while 50

percent of all schools reported that at least one

building feature was in less than adequate

condition (see table 4), this percentage varied

based upon the relationship between enrollment

and capacity within each school (figure 9).

Schools that were overcrowded were more likely

than schools that were either underenrolled or

within 5 percent of their capacity to have at least

one building feature in less than adequate

condition (61 percent versus 47 percent and 48

percent, respectively). Finally, while 43 percent

of all schools indicated that they had at least one

environmental factor that was unsatisfactory (see
49

Figure 9.—Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than adequate

condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or at least one

environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by enrollment to capacity ratio

category: 1999

1The condition of all onsite buildings is computed across original buildings, permanent additions, and temporary buildings. Ratings of less than

adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

2The condition of all building features is computed across nine building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing). Ratings of less than adequate encompass

the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

3The condition of all environmental factors is computed across six environmental factors (e.g., heating, ventilation). Ratings of unsatisfactory

include the ratings of unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory.

NOTE: “Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by

more than 5 percent. “Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and

instructional space by more than 5 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

At least one type of

onsite building in less

than adequate

condition1

At least one building

feature in less than

adequate condition2

At least one

environmental factor in

unsatisfactory

condition3

18

47

41

19

48

39

43

61

53

0

20

40

60

80

100 Underenrolled

Enrollment within 5 percent of capacity

Overcrowded

Percent
50

table 8), this percentage also varied based upon

the relationship between school enrollment and

capacity (figure 9). Schools that were

overcrowded were more likely than schools that

were underenrolled or within 5 percent of their

capacity to have at least one environmental

feature in unsatisfactory condition (53 percent

versus 41 percent and 39 percent, respectively).

Thus, schools that were overcrowded were more

likely to report facilities in less than adequate or

unsatisfactory condition.

A closer examination of the adequacy of

individual building features and satisfaction with

individual environmental factors reveals the

specifics of the poorer conditions of overcrowded

schools compared with underenrolled schools and

schools enrolled at their capacity, which tend to

be similar to each other in condition. Among

schools reporting at least one building feature to

be in less than adequate condition, overcrowded

schools reported significantly more features, on

average, in less than adequate condition than did

schools that were underenrolled (4.5 compared

with 3.5; figure 10). Schools with at least one

unsatisfactory environmental factor reported, on

average, between 2.4 and 2.9 unsatisfactory

features, which did not differ significantly from

each other.

Regarding the adequacy of specific building

features, for all features except roofs and

plumbing, overcrowded schools were significantly more likely than underenrolled schools to

report the feature as less than adequate (table 20).

Overcrowded schools were also more likely than

schools within 5 percent of their capacity to

report framing, floors and foundations, heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning, and electric

power to be less than adequate. Thus,

overcrowded schools are generally more likely

than other schools, particularly underenrolled

schools, to suffer from a number of inadequate

building features.

Although there were no significant differences in

the mean number of unsatisfactory environmental

factors based upon the enrollment to capacity

ratio categories of the schools, overcrowded

schools were more likely than other schools to

report some environmental features as unsatisfactory (table 21). Overcrowded schools were

more likely than either schools within 5 percent

of their capacity and underenrolled schools to

report unsatisfactory ventilation (38 percent

compared with 24 and 23 percent). Overcrowded

schools were also more likely than underenrolled

schools to report unsatisfactory heating (25

percent versus 14 percent). Overcrowded schools

were more likely than schools within 5 percent of

their capacity to report unsatisfactory acoustics

(25 percent versus 13 percent). The apparent

differences between overcrowded and

underenrolled schools in the likelihood of

reporting unsatisfactory lighting, indoor air

quality, or physical security based upon their

enrollment to capacity ratio category were not

statistically significant.

School Practices Used to Ease

Overcrowding

Schools that suffer from overcrowding may

utilize a number of strategies to ease the

crowding. These strategies include modifying

how physical structures are used, including

investment in portable classrooms or using as

classroom space rooms originally intended for

noninstructional purposes. Other strategies utilize

scheduling options, including staggered lunch

schedules, year-round schedules, and split-day

schedules. Because some of these practices may

be used for purposes unrelated to overcrowding

(e.g., providing additional instructional time or

enrichment classes), respondents were asked to

indicate whether the school used each practice,

and if so, the extent to which the practice was

used to ease overcrowding. The percentages of

public schools nationwide that used each of these

practices, and the extent to which the practice was

used to alleviate overcrowding, are shown in table

22.

Among the most common of the practices used by

schools were strategies based on how space is

used. Overall, 36 percent of schools reported

using portable classrooms, and 20 percent
51

Figure 10.—Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition and mean number

of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory, by enrollment to capacity ratio

category: 1999

1The condition of all building features is computed across nine building features (e.g., roofs, plumbing). Ratings of less than adequate encompass

the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

2The condition of all environmental factors is computed across six environmental factors (e.g., heating, ventilation). Ratings of unsatisfactory

include the ratings of unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory.

NOTE: “Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by

more than 5 percent. “Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and

instructional space by more than 5 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Mean Number

Mean number of

building features in

less than adequate

condition1

Mean number of

environmental factors

that are unsatisfactory2

3.5

2.4

3.8

2.6

4.5

2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Underenrolled

Enrollment within 5 percent of capacity

Overcrowded
52

Table 20. —Percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio category rating the

condition of building features as less than adequate: 1999

Building feature Underenrolled1

Enrollment within

5 percent of

capacity

Overcrowded2

Roofs................................................................................................................ 20 22 29

Framing, floors, foundations ............................................................................ 12 12 22

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors .......................................................... 20 23 33

Interior finishes, trim........................................................................................ 13 18 26

Plumbing .......................................................................................................... 22 25 32

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning ............................................................... 26 28 38

Electric power .................................................................................................. 18 19 32

Electrical lighting ............................................................................................. 14 16 28

Life safety features........................................................................................... 18 18 28

1 

“Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by more than

5 percent.

2 “Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space by

more than 5 percent.

NOTE: Ratings of less than adequate encompass the ratings of fair, poor, and replace.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

Table 21. —Percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio category rating the

condition of environmental factors as unsatisfactory: 1999

Environmental factor Underenrolled1

Enrollment within

5 percent of

capacity

Overcrowded2

Lighting............................................................................................................ 11 12 15

Heating............................................................................................................. 14 15 25

Ventilation........................................................................................................ 23 24 38

Indoor air quality.............................................................................................. 16 18 24

Acoustics or noise control ................................................................................ 17 13 25

Physical security of buildings........................................................................... 17 20 25

1 

“Underenrolled” indicates that the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space is greater than student enrollment by more than

5 percent.

2 “Overcrowded” indicates that the enrollment of the school is greater than the capacity of the permanent building(s) and instructional space by

more than 5 percent.

NOTE: Ratings of unsatisfactory include the ratings of unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.

reported the creation of temporary instructional

space (table 22).45 This translates into about

28,600 schools using temporary classrooms, and

15,700 creating temporary instructional space

(not shown in tables). For schools reporting the

 

45 Nationally, about 6 percent of instructional rooms were in

temporary structures, and about 3 percent of instructional rooms

were originally designed to serve noninstructional purposes (not

shown in tables).

use of portable classrooms, about half (46

percent) reported doing so to a great extent in

order to reduce overcrowding (table 22). Among

schools reporting that they created temporary

instructional space, one-quarter (26 percent)

reported doing so to a great extent in order to

reduce crowding, while 34 percent did so to a

moderate extent to ease overcrowding, and 38

percent did so to a minor extent. Few schools

used off-site instructional facilities (8 percent) or
53

used portable spaces other than for classroom

purposes (9 percent). Among those schools that

reported using the other space-related practices,

about one-fifth of the schools did so to a great

extent in order to reduce overcrowding.

Schools may also alter their schedules in order to

reduce the number of students in a given space

within the school at any given time. The most

common of these scheduling practices was the

use of staggered lunch schedules (74 percent). Of

the schools using staggered lunch schedules, 45

percent reported doing so to a great extent in

order to alleviate overcrowding, while 27 percent

reported doing so to a moderate extent to ease

overcrowding.46 Very few schools utilized a

year-round schedule (5 percent) or a split-day

schedule (3 percent). Schools using a year-round

schedule were nearly as likely to do so to ease

overcrowding to a great extent (40 percent) as

they were to do so for other purposes unrelated to

crowding (36 percent).

 

46 Note also that the use of staggered lunch schedules may reflect

limited capacity of the cafeteria, which may be somewhat

independent of the capacity of the school as a whole.

Table 22.—Percent of public schools that report using various space and scheduling practices, and

the extent to which the practice is used to alleviate overcrowding: 1999

Extent of use to alleviate overcrowding1

Space or scheduling practice

School uses

practice Great Moderate Minor Not at all

Spaces used

Use of portable classrooms............................... 36 46 27 24 3

Creation of temporary instructional space (e.g.,

in cafeterias or gyms) .................................. 20 26 34 38 22

Use of portables for other purposes, such as

offices for administration and resource

personnel ..................................................... 9 22 25 47 6

Use of off-site instructional facilities............... 8 20 26 33 20

Scheduling

Staggered lunch schedules................................ 74 45 27 15 13

Year-round schedule ........................................ 5 40 12 212 36

Split-day schedules........................................... 3 — — — —

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

1Based on schools that use that practice. Percentages are computed across each row, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

2 Coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
54
55

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The physical condition of schools has been

receiving a great deal of attention as press reports

indicate crumbling buildings and other signs of

deterioration, and concerns mount that the babyboom echo is causing schools to be overcrowded

(e.g., Kozol 1991; U.S. Department of Education

1998). Beyond the general condition of schools

are concerns about the adequacy of many

environmental factors, including air conditioning

and ventilation, noise control, and flexibility of

instructional space (e.g., Hansen 1992). Despite

the widespread interest in the state of public

school facilities, recent nationally representative

data regarding the physical condition of schools

are scarce. The need for current national data is

underscored by observations that the condition of

schools varies widely. Some districts have

schools deteriorating with age and lack of

maintenance, while other districts invest millions

of dollars in new, state-of-the-art buildings; the

condition of schools within districts may also

vary widely. The presence of such extremes

highlights the importance of describing the range

of physical conditions in America's public school

facilities.

This report provides data regarding a broad range

of issues concerning school condition. The

results presented in this report are based on

questionnaire data for 903 public elementary and

secondary schools in the United States. The

questionnaire responses were weighted to

produce national estimates that represent all

regular public schools in the United States.

Information about the condition of school

facilities is based on questionnaire rating scales

rather than on physical observation of school

conditions by outside observers. Data were

collected regarding the adequacy of permanent

and temporary school facilities, adequacy of

building features that make up schools, and

satisfaction with environmental factors, including

specific attention to air conditioning. Data were

also collected to provide estimates of the total

investment in repairs, renovations, and

modernizations that would be necessary to bring

all public schools into good overall condition.

The survey also gathered data pertaining to future

plans for construction, repair/renovation, and

replacement. Information was also collected

about the age of public schools, and about

overcrowding at public schools. All comparative

statements in this report have been tested for

statistical significance and adjusted for multiple

comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment and

are significant at the 0.05 level. Throughout this

report, differences that may appear large

(particularly those by school characteristics) may

not be statistically significant. This is due in part

to the relatively large standard errors surrounding

the estimates (because of the small sample size)

and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment. This

chapter provides a summary of the findings from

this survey, as well as some overall conclusions.

The Overall Condition of Schools

and Building Features

Overall, about three-quarters of schools, serving

approximately 34 million students, reported that

all the types of onsite buildings at their school

were in adequate or better condition. However,

about one-quarter of schools, enrolling

approximately 11 million students, reported at

least one of their types of onsite buildings to be in

less than adequate condition. Approximately 3.5

million of these students attended schools where

at least one type of building was in poor condition

or needed to be replaced. The variability in

overall condition of schools was not strongly

related to characteristics of the school.

While the majority of schools reported being

adequate or better overall, it is possible that the

condition of important individual building

features, such as roofs or electrical systems, may

be less than adequate, regardless of the general

condition of the school. Overall, 50 percent of

schools reported that at least one of nine building
56

features at their school was in less than adequate

condition. Schools reporting any less than

adequate feature reported an average of 3.8

building features to be in less than adequate

condition. The percent of schools with at least

one less than adequate building feature varied by

locale, region, and the concentration of poverty in

the school (defined as the percent of students

eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch).

Schools located in central cities were more likely

than those in urban fringe areas or large towns to

report at least one building feature as less than

adequate, as were schools in the West compared

with those in the Northeast. Schools with the

highest concentration of poverty were more likely

than were schools with the two lowest

concentrations of poverty to report that at least

one building features was less than adequate.

When considering individual building features,

ratings of less than adequate ranged from 14

percent of schools for framing, floors, and

foundations to 29 percent of schools for heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning. The condition

of specific building features varied somewhat by

school characteristics, although the only

consistent pattern was for schools in the West to

be more likely than schools in the Northeast to

report less than adequate conditions on four of the

nine building features.

The Cost of Bringing Schools Into

Good Overall Condition

Schools that reported on the questionnaire that the

condition of any type of building or any building

feature was in less than good condition (i.e., was

given a rating of adequate, fair, poor, or replace)

provided information about the expected cost of

the needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put the school's onsite buildings into

good overall condition. About three-quarters of

schools, representing a total of about 59,400

schools, indicated that they needed to spend some

money on repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put the school into good overall

condition. The total amount needed by schools

was estimated to be approximately $127 billion,

with an average dollar amount per school of about

$2.2 million for schools needing to spend. The

average cost per student across all public schools

was $2,900 (including schools that reported no

need to spend money), and $3,800 among the 76

percent of schools that reported needing to spend

money to put the school into good overall

condition. Cost per student did not vary by

school characteristics.

Satisfaction with Environmental

Conditions in Schools

While assessing the overall condition of school

buildings and their features provides insight into

the physical condition of schools in terms of

bricks and mortar, environmental conditions tend

to be associated with comfort within the space

provided by the physical features. While a

majority of public schools reported that each of

six environmental conditions within the school

were satisfactory, a sizable minority reported that

these environmental conditions were unsatisfactory. About a quarter of schools reported

ventilation as unsatisfactory, about a fifth of

schools reported they were unsatisfied with

heating, indoor air quality, acoustics or noise

control, and the physical security of buildings,

and 12 percent of schools were unsatisfied with

lighting conditions. In addition to these six

environmental conditions, about a third of schools

were unsatisfied with the energy efficiency of the

school, and 38 percent were unsatisfied with their

flexibility of instructional space. There were no

consistent patterns of variation by school

characteristics in satisfaction with individual

environmental conditions.

Overall, the 43 percent of the schools indicating

that at least one of the six environmental factors

was in unsatisfactory condition reported an

average of 2.6 environmental conditions to be

unsatisfactory. The percent of schools reporting

at least one unsatisfactory environmental

condition varied by locale and concentration of

poverty. Schools in rural areas and small towns

were more likely than those in urban fringe areas

and large towns to report at least one

unsatisfactory environmental condition. Schools

with the highest concentration of poverty were

more likely than those with the lowest concen-
57

tration of poverty to report at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition.

One environmental factor, air conditioning, is of

particular concern, especially in classrooms.

While about half of schools indicated that all of

their classrooms were air-conditioned, about a

quarter of schools reported that none of their

classrooms were air-conditioned, but they needed

to be. About 60 percent of schools reported that

all of their administrative offices, computer labs,

and media centers were air-conditioned. About

85 percent of the schools reported that air

conditioning, in areas of the school that had it,

was satisfactory or very satisfactory.

Plans for Construction, and for

Major Repair, Renovation, or

Replacement of Building Features

The physical condition of schools is constantly

changing: age and use wear them down,

maintenance (repair and renovation) and

replacement build them back. The majority of

schools (about two-thirds) plan for this

inevitability with written long-range facilities

plans. Regardless of whether the activity was

part of a written plan, one-fifth of schools

reported plans to build new attached and/or

detached permanent additions, and 1 in 10

reported plans to install new temporary buildings

within the next 2 years.

About half of the schools planned to make major

repairs, renovations, or replacements to at least

one building feature in the next 2 years. Overall,

41 percent of schools indicated plans to make

major repairs or renovations to at least one

building feature, and one-quarter planned to

replace at least one building feature in the next 2

years. While plans for repair or renovation in the

next 2 years varied by locale and percent minority

enrollment, plans for replacing building features

did not vary by school characteristics. The more

salient factor than school characteristics for future

repair, renovation, and replacement was the

overall condition of the school buildings or

building feature. About half (46 percent) of the

schools in adequate or better overall condition

reported plans for repair, renovation, or

replacement of building features in the next 2

years, compared with two-thirds of schools in less

than adequate overall condition. The remaining

one-third of schools in less than adequate

condition, about 6,300 schools, had no plans for

improvements to the features of their buildings.

This group of schools may continue to gradually

deteriorate over time due to deferred

maintenance.

Functional Age of Schools

The physical condition of schools is linked in

many people's minds with the age of the school.

Concerns that older schools are in more disrepair,

lack the necessary infrastructure for advanced

telecommunications systems, have inefficient

mechanical systems, and may lack modern safety

features have raised concern about the age of

America's schools. In 1999, public schools in

America were built, on average, 40 years ago.

Among schools that had been renovated since

construction, on average the renovation occurred

11 years ago. The years since construction and

since the most recent major renovation were

combined to form a measure of the functional age

of the school. The functional age was calculated

as the years since construction for schools with no

major renovations, or the years since the most

recent major renovation for school that had

completed such projects. The average functional

age of schools was 16 years. Overall, about onethird of public schools had a functional age of

less than 5 years, 28 percent had a functional age

of 5 to 14 years, 26 percent had a functional age

of 15 to 34 years, and 14 percent had a functional

age of 35 years or more. Thus, about 6 out of 10

schools had a functional age of less than 15 years.

The data suggest that school functional age is

related to condition in several ways, with the

oldest schools more likely to be in poor condition.

Older schools (those with functional ages of 15

years or more) were more likely than younger

schools (those with functional ages less than 15

years) to report that at least one type of onsite

building was in less than adequate condition, to

report at least one building feature to be less than
58

adequate, and to report at least one unsatisfactory

environmental condition.

School plans for making major repairs,

renovations, or replacements in the next 2 years

varied by the functional age of the school.

Schools with functional ages between 15 to 34

years were more likely to report plans for at least

one major repair, renovation, or replacement than

were schools with younger functional ages.

Schools with the oldest functional age (35 years

or greater) were as likely to have plans for repair,

renovation, or replacement as were the schools

with younger functional ages. Thus, even many

of the functionally youngest schools were slated

for such maintenance work. Many older schools

are slated for what are likely necessary

improvements, but many are not slated for work

that may be overdue. It is possible that this latter

group may fall into a category of schools that

have been relinquished to the inevitable effects of

aging, possibly with the intent of completely

replacing the school in the future.

Overcrowding in Schools

As the public school system copes with the babyboom echo, there is growing concern about the

degree of overcrowding existing in at least some

schools. This concern is compounded by research

on the effects of overcrowding on teacher and

student behaviors (e.g., Rivera-Batiz and Marti

1995). Overcrowding occurs when the number of

students enrolled in the school is larger than the

number of students the school is designed to

accommodate. Overall, about half of public

schools were underenrolled (approximately

40,500 schools nationwide), about one-quarter

were within 5 percent of their capacity

(approximately 20,400 schools), and about a

quarter were overcrowded (about 17,400

schools), based on the capacity of the permanent

instructional buildings and space. The extent of

overcrowding varied based upon school

instructional level, school size, region, locale, and

percent minority enrollment, but did not vary

significantly based upon concentration of poverty

in the school. Schools in rural areas or small

towns were more likely than schools in other

areas to be severely underenrolled (underenrolled

by more than 25 percent). In addition, the

likelihood of being severely underenrolled

decreased with the school's enrollment size.

Severe overcrowding (enrollments greater than

capacity by more than 25 percent) was generally

most prevalent among large schools, schools in

the West, and schools with more than 50 percent

minority enrollment. Overcrowded schools were

more likely than other schools to report that at

least one type of onsite building was in less than

adequate condition, to have at least one building

feature in less than adequate condition, and to

have at least one environmental factor in

unsatisfactory condition.

Schools have a number of strategies to help cope

with overcrowding. About a third (36 percent) of

schools indicated that they used portable

classrooms, and one out of five indicated the use

of temporary instructional space, with most

reporting using these strategies to a moderate or

great extent to alleviate overcrowding. About

three-quarters of schools reported using staggered

lunch schedules, with 45 percent of them

reporting doing so to ease overcrowding to a great

extent. However, this may reflect the need for

cafeteria space, rather than instructional space, to

accommodate student enrollments.

School Facilities and Characteristics

of Schools

Several school characteristics of interest for

policy development did appear to be related to

some of the elements of condition. Specifically,

school locale (central city, urban fringe/large

town, or rural/small town), concentration of

poverty in the school (measured by the percent of

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch),

percent minority enrollment, and school size each

appear to be related to school conditions in some

way, although strong and consistent patterns of

variation across many school conditions did not

emerge in this study. Additionally, geographic

region was related to some aspects of school

condition. These are discussed more fully below.
59

When differences between schools' condition

emerged based upon school locale, they

sometimes supported the popular perception that

schools located in central cities are in worse

condition than are schools elsewhere (e.g.,

Corcoran, Walker, and White 1988). However,

when these differences between central city

schools and other schools appeared, they tended

to be between schools in central cities and those

in urban fringe areas and large towns, and not

between central city and rural and small town

schools. Schools in central cities were more

likely than those in urban fringe areas and large

towns to report at least one building feature in

less than adequate condition and more likely to

report the need to spend money to bring the

school into good overall condition. Additionally,

the data revealed several ways in which the

condition of rural and small town schools is

different from that of other schools. For example,

schools in rural areas and small towns were more

likely than schools in urban fringe and large town

areas to indicate that at least one environmental

factor was unsatisfactory. Schools in rural areas

and small towns were more likely than schools in

urban fringe areas or large towns to report

unsatisfactory acoustics, and were more likely

than schools in both urban fringe areas and large

towns and schools in central cities to report being

unsatisfied with the physical security of

buildings. Finally, schools in rural areas and

small towns were more likely than schools in

other areas to be severely underenrolled.

Schools located in impoverished communities are

generally believed to be at greater risk for being

in poorer condition. Schools with 70 percent or

more of their students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch were more likely than schools with

less than 40 percent of their students eligible for

free or reduced-price lunch to report at least one

building feature to be in less than adequate

condition, and more likely to report that

permanent additions were in less than adequate

condition. Schools with 70 percent or more of

their students eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch were more likely than schools with less

than 20 percent of their students eligible for free

or reduced-price lunch to report roofs to be in less

than adequate condition. Schools with the highest

concentration of poverty were also more likely

than schools with the lowest concentration of

poverty to report at least one environmental factor

to be unsatisfactory.

Schools with high concentrations of minority

students are also typically depicted as being in

worse condition than schools with lower

proportions of minority students (e.g., Lowe

1996). When considering specific building

features and environmental factors, two

differences emerged, both showing a higher

percentage of schools with more than 50 percent

minority enrollment indicating the feature to be in

less than adequate condition. Specifically,

schools with more than 50 percent minority

enrollment were more likely than schools with 21

to 50 percent minority enrollment to report

inadequate exterior walls, finishes, windows, or

doors, and schools with greater than 50 percent

minority enrollment were more likely than all

other schools to report inadequate electric power.

Moreover, schools with more than 50 percent

minority enrollment were generally more likely

than schools with lower concentrations of

minority students to be severely overcrowded.

School size, as indicated by current school

enrollment, was also related to several

dimensions of school condition (specific

environmental factors, school functional age, and

overcrowding). Medium schools were more

likely than large schools to report unsatisfactory

ventilation and acoustics, and small and medium

schools were more likely than large schools to

report that their classrooms needed air

conditioning. School size was also related to the

functional age of the school. On average, small

schools had older functional ages than medium or

large schools. Additionally, large schools were

more likely than small schools to have a

functional age of less than 5 years, and small

schools were more likely than large schools to

have a functional age between 15 and 34 years.

Finally, current school size was related to the

degree to which the school was underenrolled or

overcrowded. Small schools were more likely

than medium schools, which in turn were more

likely than large schools, to be underenrolled by

more than 25 percent. Medium and large schools

were more likely than small schools to be within

5 percent of their capacity, and large schools were
60

more likely than medium and small schools to be

overcrowded by more than 25 percent.

A number of differences between schools based

upon their geographic region emerged, all

indicating that the condition of schools in the

West may be worse than elsewhere in the

country. Although the overall condition of onsite

buildings did not vary based upon region, schools

in the West were more likely than schools in the

Northeast to report that at least one building

feature was in less than adequate condition.

Schools in the West were also more likely than

schools in the Northeast to indicate four of nine

building features to be in less than adequate

condition. In addition, schools in the West were

more likely than schools in the South or Northeast

to indicate the need to spend money to bring the

school into good overall condition. Schools in

the West were also more likely to be severely

overcrowded than schools in other regions, and

were also more likely than schools elsewhere to

have temporary buildings as part of the school.

Finally, schools in the West were also more likely

to indicate plans to install new temporary

structures in the next 2 years.

Conclusions

Data from this survey suggest that although the

majority of America's public schools are in

adequate or better condition, a sizable minority

are not. Approximately one-quarter of the

schools reported at least one type of onsite

building in less than adequate condition, half

reported that their schools had building features

in need of repair, and 4 out of 10 reported

unsatisfactory environmental conditions. Data

regarding the functional age of schools and their

condition suggest that the oldest schools are the

most in need of attention, but many of these

schools do not have plans for improvement. The

data also suggest that while three-quarters of

schools do not have a problem with

overcrowding, the remaining schools are

overcrowded and close to 10 percent have

enrollments that are more than 25 percent over

the capacity of the school’s permanent buildings.

These data, then, provide a complex portrait of

the current physical condition and crowding of

America's public schools. Although the majority

of schools are in adequate condition, functionally

young, and not overcrowded, a substantial

number of schools are in poor condition, and

some of them suffer from age and overcrowding.

Past experience suggests that it will be costly to

correct these problems.
61

References

Abramson, P. (1999). Construction report. Dayton, OH: School Planning and Management.

Augenblick, J.G., Myers, J.L., and Anderson, A.B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in school funding. The

Future of Children 7(3): 63-78.

Berner, M. M. (1993). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in the District

of Columbia Public School System. Urban Education 28: 6-29.

Burnett, G. (1995). Overcrowding in urban schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education,

(ERIC/CUE Digest Number 107).

Cash, C. (1993). A study of the relationship between school building condition and student achievement

and behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University.

Corcoran, T.B., Walker, L.J., and White, J.L. (1988). Working in urban schools. Washington, DC:

Institute for Educational Leadership.

Duke, D.L., Griesdorn, J., Gillespie, M., and Tuttle, J.B. (1998). Where our children learn matters: A

report on the Virginia school facilities impact study. Charlottesville, VA: The Thomas Jefferson

Center for Educational Design.

Earthman, G.I., Cash, C.S., and Van Berkum, D. (1995). A statewide study of student achievement and

behavior and school building condition. Council of Educational Facility Planners, International

(CEFPI) Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.

Earthman, G.I., and Lemasters, L. (1996). Review of research on the relationship between school

buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Council of Educational Facility Planners,

International (CEFPI) Annual Meeting, Tarpon Springs, FL.

EdSource, Inc. (1998). What has created California's school facilities predicament? EdFact. Palo Alto,

CA: S.H. Cowell Foundation.

Ferguson, R.F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.

Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, 464-498.

Fernandez, R.R., and Timpane, P.M. (1995). Bursting at the seams: Report of the Citizens' Commission

on Planning for Enrollment Growth. Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education.

Hansen, S.J. (1992). Schoolhouse in the red: A guidebook for cutting our losses. Powerful

recommendations for improving America's school facilities. Arlington, VA: American Association

of School Administrators.

Howell, P.L., and Miller, B.B. (1997). Sources for funding for schools. The Future of Children 7(3): 39-

50.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publishers.
62

Lewis, A., Bednarek, D., Chion-Kenney, L., Harrison, C., Kolodzy, J., McCormick, K., Smith, J., Speich,

D., and Walker, L. (1989). Wolves at the schoolhouse door: An investigation of the condition of

public school buildings. Washington, DC: Education Writers Association.

Lowe, D.D. (1996). School facilities equity in California: An empirical study. Los Angeles, CA:

University of Southern California.

Mathews, J. (2000). Trailer classrooms surprisingly popular. Washington Post, 15 February, A9.

McGuffey, C.W. (1982). Facilities. In Improving educational standards and productivity, edited by H.J.

Walberg. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Nakamura, D. (2000). Parents demand repairs at aging schools; decaying Pr. George’s buildings need

more money, critics say. Washington Post, 23 January, C1.

National Education Association. (2000). Modernizing our schools: What will it cost? Washington, DC:

NEA.

Rivera-Batiz, F.L., and Marti, L. (1995). A school system at risk: A study of the consequences of

overcrowding in New York City public schools. New York, NY: Institute for Urban and Minority

Education.

Seymour, L. (2000). Baby boom’s colossal echo. Washington Post, 9 April, C1.

Terman, D.L., and Behrman, R.E. (1997). Financing schools: Analysis and recommendations. The

Future of Children 7 (3): 4-23.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Disparities in public

school district spending 1989-90. NCES 95-300. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research

and Improvement.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). A back to school report on the baby boom echo: America’s

schools are overcrowded and wearing out. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). A back to school report on the baby boom echo: No end in sight.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999b). How old are America's

public schools. NCES 1999-048. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995a). School facilities: Conditions of America's schools.

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

U.S. General Accounting Office (1995b). School facilities: American’s schools not designed or equipped

for 21st century. GAO/HEHS-95-95. Washington, DC: GAO.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995c). School facilities: States' financial and technical support varies.

GAO/HEHS-96-27. Washington, DC: GAO.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). School facilities: America's schools report differing conditions.

GAO/HEHS-96-103. Washington, DC: GAO.
63

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). School facilities: Construction expenditures have grown

significantly in recent years. GAO/HEHS-00-41. Washington, DC: GAO.

Weinstein, C.S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of

Educational Research 49(4): 577-610.
64
A-1

Appendix A

Survey Methodology
A-2
A-3

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Fast Response Survey System .......................................................................................... A-5

Sample Selection .............................................................................................................. A-5

Respondent and Response Rates ...................................................................................... A-5

Sampling and Nonsampling Errors................................................................................... A-6

Variances.......................................................................................................................... A-6

Definitions of Analysis Variables..................................................................................... A-8

Comparisons to the 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office Study ................................... A-9

Comparisons to the 2000 National Education Association Study .................................... A-11

Background Information................................................................................................... A-12

Photo Credits .................................................................................................................... A-13

List of Appendix Tables

Table

A-1 Number and percentage distribution of public schools in the study, and the estimated

number and percentage distribution in the nation, by school characteristics: 1999 ......... A-7
A-4
A-5

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 small

amounts of issue-oriented data with minimal

burden on respondents and within a relatively

short timeframe. 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 collects data from

state education agencies, local education

agencies, public and private elementary and

secondary schools, public school teachers, and

public libraries.

Sample Selection

The sample for the FRSS survey on the condition

of public school facilities consisted of 1,004

regular public elementary, middle, and high

schools in the 50 states and the District of

Columbia. The sample was selected from the

1996-97 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD)

School Universe File. The sampling frame

constructed consisted of 80,238 regular public

schools. Excluded from the sampling frame were

special education, vocational, and alternative/other schools, schools in the territories, and

schools with a high grade lower than one or

ungraded. The frame contained 49,266 regular

elementary schools, 14,808 regular middle

schools, and 16,164 regular high/combined

schools. A school was defined as an elementary

school if the lowest grade was less than or equal

to grade 3 and the highest grade was less than or

equal to grade 8. A middle school was defined as

having a lowest grade greater than or equal to

grade 4 and a highest grade less than or equal to

grade 9. A school was considered a high school

if its lowest grade was less than or equal to grade

9 and the highest grade was greater than or equal

to grade 10. Combined schools were defined as

having a lowest grade less than or equal to grade

3 and a highest grade greater than or equal to

grade 9 or the lowest grade is in grades 4 through

8 and the highest grade is in grades 10 through

12. High schools and combined schools were

combined into one category for sampling.

The public school sampling frame was stratified

by instructional level (elementary, middle, and

high school/combined), locale (city, urban fringe,

town, rural), and school size (less than 300, 300

to 499, 500 to 999, and 1,500 or more). Within

the primary strata, schools were also sorted by

geographic region and percent minority

enrollment in the school to produce additional

implicit stratification. Within each primary

stratum, the specified sample size was then

allocated to size classes in rough proportion to the

aggregate square root of the enrollment of the

schools in the class. After the stratum sample

sizes were determined, a sample of 1,004 schools

was then selected systematically from the sorted

file using independent random starts. The sample

contained 401 elementary schools, 301 middle

schools, and 302 high/combined schools. The

1,004 schools were located in 838 school

districts.

Respondent and Response Rates

Questionnaires and cover letters were mailed in

early July 1999. While individual elementary,

middle, and high schools were sampled, the

questionnaires were mailed to the districts with

which the schools were associated. A separate

questionnaire was enclosed for each sampled

school. This is the same approach used by the

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to

conduct their study of school facilities in 1994.

The cover letter indicated that the survey was

designed to be completed by district-level

personnel who were very familiar with the school

facilities in the district. Often this was a district
A-6

facilities coordinator (although the title of the

position varied). The letter indicated that the

respondent might want to consult with other

district-level personnel or with school-level

personnel, such as the principal of the selected

school, in answering some of the questions. The

respondent section on the front of the

questionnaire indicated that while most

questionnaires were completed by district-level

respondents, some were completed by schoollevel respondents (usually the school principal).

To maintain the focus on schools, which are the

sampled unit, the report refers to schools

indicating or reporting various findings, even

though respondents were primarily district-level

personnel reporting about the sampled school.

Telephone followup was conducted from late July

through September 1999 with districts that did

not respond to the initial questionnaire mailing.

Of the 1,004 schools selected for the sample, 14

were found to be out of the scope of the survey,

usually because the school was no longer in

existence. This left a total of 990 eligible schools

in the sample. Completed questionnaires were

received for 903 schools, or 91 percent of the

eligible schools. The weighted response rate was

also 91 percent. Weighted item nonresponse rates

for individual questionnaire items ranged from 0

percent to 0.7 percent. Because the item

nonresponse rate was so low, imputation for item

nonresponse was not implemented.

Sampling and Nonsampling Errors

The responses were weighted to produce national

estimates (see 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.

The survey estimates are also subject to

nonsampling errors that can arise because of

nonobservation (nonresponse or noncoverage)

errors, errors of reporting, and errors made in data

collection. These errors can sometimes bias the

data. Nonsampling errors may include such

problems as misrecording of responses; incorrect

editing, coding, and data entry; differences related

to the particular time the survey was conducted;

or errors in data preparation. While general

sampling theory can be used in part to determine

how to estimate the sampling variability of a

statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to

measure and, for measurement purposes, usually

require that an experiment be conducted as part of

the data collection procedures or that data

external to the study be used.

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors,

the questionnaire was pretested with respondents

like those who completed the survey. During the

design of the survey and the survey pretest, an

effort was made to check for consistency of

interpretation of questions and to eliminate

ambiguous items. The questionnaire and

instructions were extensively reviewed by the

National Center for Education Statistics and the

Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department

of Education. 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. Data were keyed with 100 percent

verification.

Variances

The standard error is a measure of the variability

of estimates 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. This is a 95 percent

confidence interval. For example, the estimated

percentage of schools with all building types in

adequate or better condition is 76.1 percent, and

the estimated standard error is 1.8 percent. The

95 percent confidence interval for the statistic

extends from [76.1 – (1.8 times 1.96)] to [76.1 +
A-7

Table A-1. Number and percentage distribution of public schools in the study, and the estimated

number and percentage distribution in the nation, by school characteristics: 1999

Respondent sample National estimate

School characteristic

Number Percent Number Percent

All public schools.......................................... 903 100 78,313 100

School instructional level

Elementary school......................................... 580 64 59,940 77

High school ................................................... 286 32 15,505 20

Combined...................................................... 37 4 2,867 4

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................ 129 14 18,095 23

300 to 599 ..................................................... 300 33 31,942 41

600 or more ................................................... 474 52 28,275 36

Locale

Central city.................................................... 250 28 21,294 27

Urban fringe/large town ................................ 349 39 27,846 36

Rural/small town ........................................... 304 34 29,173 37

Region

Northeast....................................................... 147 16 13,210 17

Midwest ........................................................ 244 27 22,843 29

South ............................................................. 321 36 26,358 34

West .............................................................. 191 21 15,901 20

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less............................................. 256 28 24,676 32

6 to 20 percent............................................... 208 23 17,831 23

21 to 50 percent............................................. 213 24 17,025 22

More than 50 percent .................................... 226 25 18,781 24

Percent of students in school eligible for free

or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent...................................... 261 29 21,216 27

20 to 39 percent............................................. 252 28 20,915 27

40 to 69 percent............................................. 232 26 20,947 27

70 percent or more ........................................ 158 17 15,234 19

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the

Condition of Public School Facilities, 1999.

(1.8 times 1.96)], or from 72.6 to 79.6 percent.

Tables of standard errors for each table and figure

in the report are provided in appendix B.

Estimates of 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 variances of the statistics. To

construct the replications, 50 stratified

subsamples of the full sample were created and

then dropped one at a time to define 50 jackknife
A-8

replicates. A computer program (WesVarPC)

was used to calculate the estimates of standard

errors. WesVarPC is a stand-alone Windows

application that computes sampling errors for a

wide variety of statistics (totals, percents, ratios,

log-odds ratios, general functions of estimates in

tables, linear regression parameters, and logistic

regression parameters).

The test statistics used in the analysis were

calculated using the jackknife variances and thus

appropriately reflected the complex nature of the

sample design. In particular, an adjusted chisquare test using Satterthwaite’s approximation to

the design effect was used in the analysis of the

two-way tables. Finally, Bonferroni adjustments

were made to control for multiple comparisons

where appropriate. For example, for an

“experiment-wise” comparison involving g

pairwise comparisons, each difference was tested

at the 0.05/g significance level to control for the

fact that g differences were simultaneously tested.

The Bonferroni adjustment results in a more

conservative critical value being used when

judging statistical significance. This means that

comparisons that would have been significant

with a critical value of 1.96 may not be

significant with the more conservative critical

value. For example, the critical value for

comparisons between any two of the four

categories of poverty concentration is 2.64, rather

than 1.96. This means that there must be a larger

difference between the estimates being compared

for there to be a statistically significant

difference.

Definitions of Analysis Variables

Categories of the analysis variables are those used

by GAO for their 1994 study.

School instructional level – Schools were

classified according to their grade span in the

1996-97 Common Core of Data (CCD) School

Universe File.

Elementary school – had grade 6 or

lower and no grade higher than grade 8.

Secondary school – had no grade lower

than grade 7 and had grade 7 or higher.

Combined school – had grades higher

than grade 8 and lower than grade 7.

School enrollment size – total number of

students enrolled on October 1, 1998, based on

responses to question 17 on the survey

questionnaire.

Less than 300 students

300 to 599 students

600 or more students

Locale – as defined in the 1996-97 Common

Core of Data (CCD).

Central city – a large or mid-size

central city of a Metropolitan Statistical

Area (MSA).

Urban fringe/large town – urban fringe

is a place within an MSA of a central

city, but not primarily its central city;

large town is an incorporated place not

within an MSA, with a population

greater than or equal to 25,000.

Small town/rural – small town is an

incorporated place not within an MSA,

with a population less than 25,000 and

greater than or equal to 2,500; rural is a

place with a population less than 2,500

and/or a population density of less than

1,000 per square mile, and defined as

rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Geographic region –

Northeast - Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania

Midwest - Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,

Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, Kansas

South - Delaware, Maryland, District of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,

North Carolina, South Carolina,
A-9

Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee,

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas,

Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

West - Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,

Nevada, Washington, Oregon,

California, Alaska, Hawaii

Percent minority enrollment in the school –

The percent of students enrolled in the school

whose race or ethnicity is classified as one of the

following: American Indian or Alaskan Native,

Asian or Pacific Islander, black, or Hispanic,

based on data in the 1996-97 CCD file.

5 percent or less

6 to 20 percent

21 to 50 percent

More than 50 percent

Percent of students at the school eligible for

free or reduced-price lunch – This was based on

responses to question 20 on the survey

questionnaire; if it was missing from the

questionnaire, it was obtained from the 1996-97

CCD file. This item served as the measurement

of the concentration of poverty at the school.

Less than 20 percent

20 to 39 percent

40 to 69 percent

70 percent or more

It is important to note that many of the school

characteristics used for independent analyses 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 high minority

enrollment also more likely to have a high

concentration of poverty. Other relationships

between analysis variables may exist. Because of

the relatively small sample size used in this study,

it is difficult to separate the independent effects of

these variables. Their existence, however, should

be considered in the interpretation of the data

presented in this report.

Comparisons to the 1994 U.S.

General Accounting Office Study

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)

conducted a study in 1994 on the condition of

public school facilities. The sample for the GAO

survey was the public school sample from the

NCES 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS). In May 1994, GAO mailed

questionnaires for 9,956 sampled schools to the

5,459 districts in which these schools were

located. While individual schools were sampled,

the questionnaires were mailed to the districts

with which the schools were associated. A

separate questionnaire was enclosed for each

sampled school. Completed questionnaires were

accepted through early January 1995. Of the

9,956 schools in the sample, 393 were found to be

ineligible, resulting in an adjusted sample of

9,563 schools. There were 7,478 completed,

usable questionnaires returned to GAO, for a

school response rate of 78 percent. The responses

were weighted to adjust for nonresponse and

produce national estimates.

Many of the items on the FRSS questionnaire

were taken directly from the questionnaire used

by GAO in 1994. The same questionnaire items

and analysis variables were used with the

intention of providing information about change

in the condition of public school facilities

between 1994 when GAO conducted its survey

and 1999 when NCES conducted its survey.

However, the GAO information included in this

report is provided as contextual information only.

Statistical comparisons are not provided because

GAO does not provide standard errors for the data

in their reports, and exact point estimates are also

missing for some comparative statements from

the GAO reports.

In addition, in some cases the data are not

completely comparable between the two studies.

In particular, the way in which the cost estimates

were obtained differed in the two studies. Both

studies used the same wording for the cost
A-10

question, which asked what would probably be

the total cost of all repairs, renovations, and

modernizations required to put the school’s onsite

buildings into good overall condition. In the

FRSS study, schools that reported in the first

question on the survey that the condition of any

type of onsite building (original building,

permanent addition, or temporary building) or

any building feature (e.g., roofs, plumbing,

electric power) was less than good (i.e., was

given a rating of adequate, fair, poor, or replace)

provided information about the cost of the needed

repairs, renovations, and modernizations. The

GAO study, however, asked about the condition

of the types of onsite buildings, followed by the

question about the cost to bring the onsite

buildings into good overall condition. The

question about the condition of various building

features was asked several pages later in the GAO

study. Thus, even though the wording of the cost

question was the same in the FRSS and GAO

studies, the two studies may include costs for

different things, since respondents to the GAO

study were not explicitly prompted to include

costs associated with building features. However,

since building features (e.g., roofs and plumbing)

are important aspects of the condition of

buildings, respondents to the GAO study may

have included costs associated with these features

in their cost estimates. Because of the

methodological differences between the two

studies, the cost estimates from them should not

be directly compared.

When the FRSS data are reanalyzed to include

only those schools that reported on the

questionnaire that the condition of any type of

onsite building was less than good, the percentage

of schools that reported needing to spend money

to bring the onsite buildings into good overall

condition drops from 76 percent to 52 percent.

The total amount needed for the repairs,

renovations, and modernizations for this group of

schools was estimated to be approximately $111

billion, down from the approximately $127

billion needed by the schools with any type of

building or any building feature in less than good

condition.47 However, the data are still not

completely comparable to the GAO study due to

the different ordering of the questions.

GAO also presented two cost estimates based on

data from their 1994 study: $112 billion and

$101 billion (U.S. GAO 1995a). GAO derived

the estimate of $112 billion by summing the

amount reported for the cost of all repairs,

renovations, and modernizations to put schools

into good overall condition (estimated at $101

billion), and the amounts reported that would

need to be spent in the next 3 years to comply

with various federal mandates, such as asbestos

removal and accessibility for students with

disabilities (estimated at $11 billion). The $101

billion and the $11 billion were collected in two

separate questions at different points in the

survey. It is possible that the $112 billion

includes some duplication of money needed,

since the $11 billion needed to comply with

federal mandates may or may not have been

included by respondents in the $101 billion

needed to put schools into good overall condition.

The FRSS survey did not collect information

about spending on federal mandates.

When the 1994 GAO estimate of $101 billion

needed for repairs, renovations, and

modernizations is adjusted for inflation to 1999

dollars, the inflation-adjusted estimate is $112

billion needed for repairs, renovations, and

modernizations.48 However, since GAO does not

provide either a confidence interval or a standard

error for the estimate of $101 billion dollars, it is

not possible to do a statistical test of differences

between the FRSS and GAO estimates.

Other cost estimates provided in the GAO reports

include a combined dollar estimate for both the

amount needed for repairs, renovations, and

modernizations, and the amount needed to

 

47 The standard error for the 52 percent of schools that needed to

spend money is 1.7. The standard error for the $111 billion is 7.1

billion.

48 This inflation-adjusted estimate of $112 billion should not be

confused with the estimate of $112 billion that GAO derived in

1994 by combining the estimate of $101 billion needed for repairs,

renovations, and modernizations with the estimate of $11 billion

needed to comply with federal mandates.
A-11

comply with federal mandates. For example,

GAO reports that 84 percent of schools needed to

spend money, and of those schools needing to

spend money, the average amount needed per

school was $1.7 million (U.S. GAO 1996).

However, the percentage of schools needing to

spend money and the estimate of $1.7 million

includes money needed to comply with federal

mandates. GAO does not report the percentage of

schools needing to spend money or an average

amount needed per school for just repairs,

renovations, and modernizations, which is what is

reported for the FRSS survey.

GAO also reports more differences by school

characteristics than are found in the FRSS study.

For example, according to GAO, “...on every

measure—proportion of schools reporting

inadequate buildings, inadequate building

features, and unsatisfactory environmental

conditions; proportion of schools reporting

needing to spend above the national average; and

number of students attending these schools—the

same subgroups consistently emerged as those

with the most problems. These subgroups

included central cities, the western region of the

country, large schools, secondary schools, schools

reporting student populations of at least 50.5

percent minority students, and schools reporting

student populations of 70 percent or more poor

students. The differences between subgroups,

however, were often relatively small.” (U.S. GAO

1996, p. 2). However, GAO provides no

information about whether statistical testing was

done, and if so, what critical values were used to

indicate statistically significant differences. In

addition, the sample size in the GAO study was

much larger than in the FRSS study (7,478 versus

903 respondents). Estimates from larger samples

typically have smaller standard errors than

estimates from smaller samples; consequently,

smaller differences tend to be statistically

significant in surveys with larger samples

compared to the same differences in surveys with

smaller samples. Thus, the “relatively small”

differences that GAO refers to would be more

likely to be significantly different in the GAO

study than in the FRSS study in any statistical

testing that was done. That is, FRSS may have

identified fewer differences as significant while

the GAO study may have identified more

differences as significant only as a function of

differences in sample size.

Comparisons to the 2000 National

Education Association Study

The National Education Association (NEA)

recently published a report that provided a cost

estimate of $322 billion needed for school

modernization (NEA 2000). The study on which

this report is based differs in many ways from the

FRSS study. The major difference is what is

included in this estimate. The NEA estimate has

two components: funds for school infrastructure

needs (estimated at $268 billion), and funds for

education technology needs (estimated at $54

billion). School infrastructure needs consisted of

new school construction (including the buildings,

grounds [purchase, landscaping, and paving], and

the fixtures, major equipment, and furniture

necessary to furnish it); additions to existing

facilities (including the fixtures, major

equipment, and furniture necessary to furnish it);

renovation of an existing facility; retrofitting of

an existing facility (including for technology

readiness, such as phone lines and fiber optic

cable); deferred maintenance (maintenance

necessary to bring a school facility up to good

condition, or to replace a facility if it is in such

poor condition that it cannot be brought up to

good condition); and major improvements to

grounds, such as landscaping and paving.

Education technology needs consisted of

computers and peripherals; software; connectivity

(including Internet access); networks; technology

infrastructure (including electrical upgrades, and

wiring and cables to, within, and between

schools); distance education; maintenance and

repair of technology equipment; and technologyrelated professional development and support for

teachers. In contrast, the FRSS study asked for

an estimate of the total cost of all repairs,

renovations, and modernizations required to put

the school’s onsite buildings into good overall

condition. Thus, the cost estimate from the FRSS

study encompasses only a small part of what is

included in the cost estimate from the NEA study.
A-12

In addition, the two studies obtained information

in very different ways. The FRSS study was

designed to be completed about sampled schools

by district-level personnel who were very familiar

with the school facilities in the district, in

consultation with school-level personnel if

necessary. These data were then weighted to

produce national estimates that represent all

regular public schools in the United States. In

contrast, the NEA report obtained state-level data

from numerous sources to come up with their cost

estimate. These sources included policy and

research literature, policy and research databases,

the NEA annual Survey of State School Finance

Legislation, and the NEA Modernization Needs

Assessment Questionnaire, conducted in 1999. It

should also be noted that while NEA describes

their study as a 50-state report of school

modernization needs, the study received usable

responses about school infrastructure from only

24 states, and about education technology from

only 2 states. The remaining data were derived

by various estimation techniques. The FRSS

study, on the other hand, had a 91 percent

response rate, and used a weighting process

designed to adjust for variable probabilities of

selection and differential nonresponse.

Background Information

The survey was performed under contract with

Westat, using the Fast Response Survey System

(FRSS). Westat’s Project Director was Elizabeth

Farris, and the Survey Managers were Laurie

Lewis and Kyle Snow. Bernie Greene was the

NCES Project Officer. The data were requested

by the Office of the Under Secretary, U.S.

Department of Education. Within the Office of

the Under Secretary, input was provided by

Thomas Corwin, James Houser, and Stephanie

Stullich.

This report was reviewed by the following

individuals:

Outside NCES

• William Brenner, National Clearinghouse for

Educational Facilities

• Richard DiCola, Office of Vocational and

Adult Education, U.S. Department of

Education

• Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund

• Kimberly Jenkins, Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Department of Education

• Judy Marks, National Clearinghouse for

Educational Facilities

• Eileen O’Brien, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, U.S. Department

of Education

• Mary Schifferli, Office for Civil Rights, U.S.

Department of Education

Inside NCES

• Ellen Bradburn, Early Childhood,

International, and Crosscutting Studies

Division

• Kerry Gruber, Elementary/Secondary and

Libraries Studies Division

• Lee Hoffman, Elementary/Secondary and

Libraries Studies Division

• Marilyn McMillen, Chief Statistician

• Valena Plisko, Associate Commissioner,

Early Childhood, International, and

Crosscutting Studies Division

• John Ralph, Early Childhood, International,

and Crosscutting Studies Division

For more information about the Fast Response

Survey System (FRSS) or the survey on the

condition of public school facilities, contact

Bernie Greene, Early Childhood, International,

and Crosscutting Studies Division, National

Center for Education Statistics, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.

Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20006, e-mail:

Bernard_Greene@ed.gov, telephone (202) 502-

7348.
A-13

Photo Credits

All photographs on the cover are from Photodisc,

Inc., except the photograph in the third row,

middle position is from Contact Press Images, ©

Alon Reininger, and the photograph in the bottom

row, left position is from Stock, Boston, ©

Richard Pasley.
A-14
B-1

Appendix B

Tables of Standard Errors
B-2
B-3

Table of Contents

Standard Error Tables for Text Tables and Figures

Table Page

1a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with each type of building, and the

percentage distribution of ratings of the overall condition of the building types: 1999 .. B-5

2a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with each type of building, and the

percent rating each building type in less than adequate condition, by school

characteristics: 1999 ........................................................................................................ B-6

3a Standard errors of the number and percentage distributions of public schools and

enrollments according to the condition of all onsite building types: 1999...................... B-7

4a Standard errors of the percent of public schools rating the condition of building

features as less than adequate, by school characteristics: 1999....................................... B-8

5a Standard errors of the percent of public schools reporting needing to spend money on

repairs, renovations, and modernizations to bring the school into good overall condition,

and the cost per student of the repairs, renovations, and modernizations, by school

characteristics: 1999 ........................................................................................................ B-9

6a Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating the sources of cost estimates

for all repairs, renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite

buildings into good overall condition: 1999..................................................................... B-10

7a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the type

of source used for cost estimates and the average cost per school for all repairs,

renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into

good overall condition: 1999........................................................................................... B-11

8a Standard errors of the percent of public schools rating the condition of environmental

factors as unsatisfactory, by school characteristics: 1999 ............................................... B-12

9a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the status

of air conditioning in various areas of their school buildings: 1999................................ B-13

10a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the

status of air conditioning in classrooms, by school characteristics: 1999 ....................... B-14

11a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with air conditioning in various areas

of the school, and the percentage distribution of those schools according to satisfaction

with the condition of air conditioning in the school areas: 1999..................................... B-15

12a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with a written long-range educational

facilities plan for the school, by school characteristics: 1999 ......................................... B-16
B-4

13a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with construction projects planned for

the school in the next 2 years, by school characteristics: 1999 ....................................... B-17

14a Standard errors of the percent of public schools with plans to make at least one major

repair, renovation, or replacement to a building feature in the next 2 years, by school

characteristics: 1999 ........................................................................................................ B-18

15a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to their

plans for major repair, renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the

next 2 years: 1999............................................................................................................ B-19

16a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to school

plans for major repair, renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next

2 years, by condition of the building feature: 1999 ......................................................... B-20

17a Standard errors of the age of public schools based upon years since construction of

the main instructional building(s), years since most recent major renovation, and

functional age of the school, by school characteristics: 1999.......................................... B-21

18a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the

functional age of the school, by school characteristics: 1999.......................................... B-22

19a Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are

underenrolled, at capacity, or overcrowded, by school characteristics: 1999 ................. B-23

20a Standard errors of the percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio

category rating the condition of building features as less than adequate: 1999................ B-24

21a Standard errors of the percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio

category rating the condition of environmental factors as unsatisfactory: 1999 .............. B-25

22a Standard errors of the percent of public schools that report using various space and

scheduling practices, and the extent to which the practice is used to alleviate

overcrowding: 1999......................................................................................................... B-26

23 Standard errors for the figures and for data not shown in tables: 1999 ........................... B-27
B-5

Table 1a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with each type of building, and the

percentage distribution of ratings of the overall condition of the building types: 1999

Overall condition

Type of building Adequate or better Less than adequate

School has

building

type Total Excellent Good Adequate Total Fair Poor Replace

Original buildings..... 0.2 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.6

Permanent additions . 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 0.4

Temporary buildings. 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 0.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-6

Table 2a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with each type of building, and the

percent rating each building type in less than adequate condition, by school

characteristics: 1999

Original buildings Permanent additions Temporary buildings

School characteristic School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition

School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition

School has

building

type

Less than

adequate

condition

All public schools................................ 0.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2

School instructional level

Elementary school............................... 0.1 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.4

High school ......................................... 0.8 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.9 4.5

Combined............................................ (+) 5.3 6.6 6.6 7.4 —

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ...................................... 0.7 3.8 4.7 3.5 4.3 —

300 to 599 ........................................... (+) 2.4 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.5

600 or more ......................................... 0.2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 3.0

Locale

Central city.......................................... (+) 2.7 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.8

Urban fringe/large town ...................... (+) 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.4

Rural/small town................................. 0.5 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.9 4.1

Region

Northeast............................................. (+) 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.7 —

Midwest .............................................. (+) 2.8 3.5 2.7 3.2 6.8

South ................................................... (+) 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.1

West .................................................... 0.8 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.7

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................... 0.5 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.1 4.3

6 to 20 percent..................................... 0.2 3.5 3.5 3.2 4.0 5.3

21 to 50 percent................................... (+) 2.7 3.8 4.6 3.8 3.7

More than 50 percent .......................... (+) 3.0 3.4 3.5 4.2 4.1

Percent of students in school eligible

for free or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent............................ 0.6 3.1 3.3 2.3 3.3 4.4

20 to 39 percent................................... (+) 2.4 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.9

40 to 69 percent................................... (+) 2.5 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.3

70 percent or more .............................. (+) 4.2 4.4 5.1 4.6 5.3

(+) Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 100 percent.

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-7

Table 3a.—Standard errors of the number and percentage distributions of public schools and

enrollments according to the condition of all onsite building types: 1999

Schools Students

Condition of all onsite building types Percentage

distribution

Number

Percentage

distribution

Number

All public schools................................................................................... (+) 632.1 (+) 575,270.9

Schools with all building types in adequate or better condition.................... 1.8 1,416.2 1.7 664,518.3

Schools with at least one type of building in less than adequate condition... 1.8 1,406.8 1.7 822,941.3

(+) Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 100 percent.

NOTE: Standard errors are computed on unrounded numbers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-8

Table 4a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools rating the condition of building features as

less than adequate, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least

one

building

feature is

in less than

adequate

condition

Roofs

Framing,

floors,

foundations

Exterior

walls,

finishes,

windows,

doors

Interior

finishes,

trim

Plumbing

Heating,

ventilation,

air conditioning

Electric

power

Electrical

lighting

Life safety

features

All public schools........... 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3

School instructional level

Elementary school .......... 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.6

High school .................... 3.0 3.1 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.8

Combined....................... 9.0 6.3 6.8 8.8 5.5 7.0 9.1 7.0 8.6 9.0

School enrollment size

Less than 300.................. 4.6 3.8 3.1 3.9 3.2 4.4 3.8 3.5 3.2 4.1

300 to 599....................... 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.4

600 or more .................... 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7

Locale

Central city..................... 3.7 3.2 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9

Urban fringe/large town . 3.2 2.6 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.1

Rural/small town ............ 2.6 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.9

Region

Northeast........................ 4.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.9 3.0

Midwest.......................... 3.1 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8

South .............................. 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.6 3.2 3.0

West ............................... 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.7 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.4

Percent minority

enrollment

5 percent or less.............. 3.3 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.8

6 to 20 percent................ 4.1 3.8 3.0 3.4 2.7 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.8 3.5

21 to 50 percent.............. 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.5

More than 50 percent...... 3.4 3.7 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.8 4.0 2.9

Percent of students in

school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent....... 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.1 2.6

20 to 39 percent.............. 3.7 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1

40 to 69 percent.............. 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.6 2.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.3

70 percent or more.......... 4.5 4.6 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.6 5.2 3.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-9

Table 5a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools reporting the need to spend money on

repairs, renovations, and modernizations to bring the school into good overall

condition, and the cost per student of the repairs, renovations, and modernizations, by

school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Percent of schools

reporting needing to spend

Cost per student

Cost per student at schools

needing to spend money

All public schools............................ 1.5 158.9 191.9

School instructional level

Elementary school........................... 1.7 159.1 217.1

High school ..................................... 2.8 379.3 442.3

Combined........................................ 7.0 2,026.9 2,222.7

School enrollment size

Less than 300 .................................. 3.6 602.4 702.2

300 to 599 ....................................... 2.3 375.8 503.2

600 or more ..................................... 2.0 220.0 288.2

Locale

Central city...................................... 2.7 326.5 384.3

Urban fringe/large town .................. 3.1 251.1 335.4

Rural/small town ............................. 2.1 339.0 441.9

Region

Northeast......................................... 3.9 602.1 821.0

Midwest .......................................... 3.0 286.6 354.0

South ............................................... 2.6 189.5 260.6

West ................................................ 2.8 416.1 477.7

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less............................... 2.9 418.6 590.1

6 to 20 percent................................. 3.1 273.3 324.9

21 to 50 percent............................... 3.5 358.0 524.8

More than 50 percent ...................... 2.7 255.2 284.9

Percent of students in school

eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent........................ 3.2 291.5 427.2

20 to 39 percent............................... 3.2 300.9 382.7

40 to 69 percent............................... 2.7 424.2 509.0

70 percent or more .......................... 3.4 325.4 365.9

NOTE: Standard errors are computed on unrounded numbers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-10

Table 6a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating the sources of cost estimates

for all repairs, renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite

buildings into good overall condition: 1999

Source of cost estimate Percent

Best professional judgment of the respondent.......................................................................................... 2.0

Capital improvement/facilities master plan, schedule, or budget ............................................................. 1.9

Facilities inspections/assessments performed within the last 3 years by licensed professionals .............. 1.9

Repair/renovation, modernization work already being performed and/or contracted for......................... 1.8

Opinions of other district or school administrators.................................................................................. 1.3

Other sources........................................................................................................................................... 1.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-11

Table 7a. —Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools indicating the type of

source used for cost estimates and the average cost per school for all repairs,

renovations, and modernizations required to bring the school’s onsite buildings into

good overall condition: 1999

Types of source for cost estimate Percent of schools Average cost per school

Professional judgment and opinions only ...................................................................... 2.0 117,755.1

Written documents only ................................................................................................ 2.1 280,635.4

Combination of types of sources.................................................................................... 0.9 398,792.9

NOTE: Standard errors are computed on unrounded numbers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the

Condition of Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-12

Table 8a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools rating the condition of environmental

factors as unsatisfactory, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least one

environmental

factor is in

unsatisfactory

condition

Lighting Heating Ventilation Indoor air

quality

Acoustics

or noise

control

Physical

security of

buildings

All public schools...................... 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2

School instructional level

Elementary school ..................... 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.5

High school ............................... 2.8 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.8 3.1

Combined.................................. 9.2 7.2 7.5 8.5 6.7 8.3 9.5

School enrollment size

Less than 300............................. 4.6 2.9 3.3 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.6

300 to 599.................................. 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.4

600 or more ............................... 2.0 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.7

Locale

Central city................................ 3.8 2.6 2.6 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.6

Urban fringe/large town ............ 2.9 1.7 2.1 2.8 2.3 1.9 2.1

Rural/small town ....................... 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.7

Region

Northeast................................... 4.5 2.6 3.3 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.3

Midwest..................................... 3.5 2.5 2.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.5

South ......................................... 3.0 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.5

West .......................................... 4.3 3.0 4.4 4.4 3.6 3.2 2.9

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less......................... 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.5

6 to 20 percent........................... 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.7

21 to 50 percent......................... 4.0 2.5 3.1 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.8

More than 50 percent................. 4.3 3.5 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.8

Percent of students in school

eligible for free or reduced-price

school lunch

Less than 20 percent.................. 3.4 2.0 2.7 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.0

20 to 39 percent......................... 3.2 2.4 2.1 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.7

40 to 69 percent......................... 3.6 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.5 3.0

70 percent or more..................... 4.4 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-13

Table 9a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the status

of air conditioning in various areas of their school buildings: 1999

Area

None airconditioned

because not

needed

None airconditioned,

but needed

Some airconditionedMostly airconditionedAll airconditioned

Classrooms........................................................... 1.2 1.9 1.0 0.6 2.1

Administrative offices.......................................... 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.7

Computer labs...................................................... 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.6

Media centers....................................................... 1.2 1.8 0.6 0.6 1.6

Other areas........................................................... 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.2 2.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-14

Table 10a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the status

of air conditioning in classrooms, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

None airconditioned

because not

needed

None airconditioned,

but needed

Some airconditionedMostly airconditionedAll airconditioned

All public schools............................................. 1.2 1.9 1.0 0.6 2.1

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 1.6 2.3 1.1 0.8 2.6

High school ...................................................... 1.7 2.7 2.4 1.2 3.2

Combined......................................................... 6.7 8.6 2.4 6.0 8.9

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 3.1 4.1 2.2 1.9 4.5

300 to 599 ........................................................ 2.7 3.2 1.6 0.9 3.5

600 or more ...................................................... 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.1 2.0

Locale

Central city....................................................... 2.5 3.0 2.0 0.9 3.8

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 2.2 2.8 1.8 1.1 2.9

Rural/small town .............................................. 2.3 3.0 1.8 1.4 3.4

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 4.2 4.4 2.7 0.4 3.0

Midwest ........................................................... 2.2 3.9 2.2 1.3 3.3

South ................................................................ 0.4 1.5 1.0 1.3 2.2

West ................................................................. 3.3 4.7 2.6 1.4 4.5

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 2.7 3.7 2.0 1.3 3.8

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 2.6 4.3 2.0 1.1 4.4

21 to 50 percent................................................ 2.7 3.1 2.2 1.7 3.6

More than 50 percent ....................................... 2.5 3.0 2.1 1.4 3.4

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 2.5 3.5 2.5 1.1 4.0

20 to 39 percent................................................ 2.5 2.9 2.2 1.3 3.1

40 to 69 percent................................................ 2.7 2.8 2.0 1.4 4.1

70 percent or more ........................................... 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.0 4.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-15

Table 11a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with air conditioning in various areas

of the school, and the percentage distribution of those schools according to satisfaction

with the condition of air conditioning in the school areas: 1999

Condition of air conditioning

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Area

Area is all or

partially airconditioned Total

Very

satisfactory

Satisfactory Total Unsatisfactory

Very

unsatisfactory

Classrooms..................................... 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.4 0.9

Administrative offices.................... 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.3 0.7

Computer labs................................ 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.4 0.8

Media centers................................. 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9

Other areas..................................... 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.6 0.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-16

Table 12a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with a written long-range educational

facilities plan for the school, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic School has written facilities plan

All public schools................................................................................................ 1.9

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................................................................... 2.3

High school ......................................................................................................... 2.9

Combined............................................................................................................ 9.4

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ...................................................................................................... 4.9

300 to 599 ........................................................................................................... 3.3

600 or more ......................................................................................................... 2.3

Locale

Central city.......................................................................................................... 3.4

Urban fringe/large town ...................................................................................... 2.8

Rural/small town ................................................................................................. 2.9

Region

Northeast............................................................................................................. 4.9

Midwest .............................................................................................................. 3.8

South ................................................................................................................... 2.8

West .................................................................................................................... 4.3

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................................................................... 3.8

6 to 20 percent..................................................................................................... 3.7

21 to 50 percent................................................................................................... 3.5

More than 50 percent .......................................................................................... 3.7

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent............................................................................................ 4.2

20 to 39 percent................................................................................................... 3.6

40 to 69 percent................................................................................................... 3.8

70 percent or more .............................................................................................. 4.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-17

Table 13a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with construction projects planned for

the school in the next 2 years, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Build new attached/

detached permanent

additions

Install new temporary

buildings

All public schools.................................................................................. 1.4 1.1

School instructional level

Elementary school................................................................................. 1.7 1.3

High school ........................................................................................... 2.8 1.9

Combined.............................................................................................. 7.4 2.5

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ........................................................................................ 3.0 1.9

300 to 599 ............................................................................................. 2.4 1.4

600 or more ........................................................................................... 1.7 2.1

Locale

Central city............................................................................................ 2.0 2.4

Urban fringe/large town ........................................................................ 2.4 1.7

Rural/small town ................................................................................... 2.0 1.4

Region

Northeast............................................................................................... 3.7 1.8

Midwest ................................................................................................ 2.4 1.4

South ..................................................................................................... 2.6 1.9

West ...................................................................................................... 2.5 3.9

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less..................................................................................... 2.5 1.6

6 to 20 percent....................................................................................... 3.2 2.6

21 to 50 percent..................................................................................... 3.4 2.5

More than 50 percent ............................................................................ 2.8 1.9

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school

lunch

Less than 20 percent.............................................................................. 2.9 2.1

20 to 39 percent..................................................................................... 2.5 2.3

40 to 69 percent..................................................................................... 3.0 2.1

70 percent or more ................................................................................ 3.3 2.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-18

Table 14a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools with plans to make at least one major

repair, renovation, or replacement to a building feature in the next 2 years, by school

characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

At least one

major repair,

renovation or

replacement

planned

Major repair or

renovation

planned

Replacement

planned

All public schools.................................................................................. 1.6 1.8 1.2

School instructional level

Elementary school................................................................................. 2.2 2.3 1.6

High school ........................................................................................... 3.1 3.2 2.6

Combined.............................................................................................. 9.0 8.6 7.7

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ........................................................................................ 4.4 4.2 3.2

300 to 599 ............................................................................................. 2.9 3.1 2.2

600 or more ........................................................................................... 2.4 2.6 2.1

Locale

Central city............................................................................................ 3.8 3.6 3.2

Urban fringe/large town ........................................................................ 3.3 3.2 2.4

Rural/small town ................................................................................... 3.2 2.9 2.2

Region

Northeast............................................................................................... 4.3 4.1 4.1

Midwest ................................................................................................ 3.6 3.8 2.5

South ..................................................................................................... 3.0 3.4 2.5

West ...................................................................................................... 3.8 4.3 3.2

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less..................................................................................... 3.4 2.9 2.7

6 to 20 percent....................................................................................... 3.2 3.4 3.2

21 to 50 percent..................................................................................... 4.0 4.1 3.1

More than 50 percent ............................................................................ 3.8 3.8 3.5

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price school

lunch

Less than 20 percent.............................................................................. 3.8 3.5 3.4

20 to 39 percent..................................................................................... 3.1 3.2 2.7

40 to 69 percent..................................................................................... 3.4 3.5 3.2

70 percent or more ................................................................................ 3.9 4.1 3.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-19

Table 15a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to their

plans for major repair, renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next

2 years: 1999

Feature

No planned repair,

renovation, or

replacement

Major repair or

renovation

Replacement

Roofs.................................................................... 1.4 1.1 1.0

Framing, floors, foundations................................ 1.0 0.8 0.7

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors.............. 1.3 1.2 0.7

Interior finishes, trim ........................................... 1.3 1.1 0.7

Plumbing.............................................................. 1.4 1.3 0.8

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning................... 1.7 1.4 1.0

Electric power...................................................... 1.5 1.3 0.8

Electrical lighting................................................. 1.2 1.0 0.9

Life safety features............................................... 1.3 1.0 0.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-20

Table 16a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to school

plans for major repair, renovation, or replacement of each building feature in the next

2 years, by condition of the building feature: 1999

Building feature and condition

No planned repair,

renovation, or

replacement

Major repair or

renovation

Replacement

Roofs

Adequate or better............................................ 1.2 1.0 0.6

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.0 2.9 3.5

Framing, floors, foundation

Adequate or better............................................ 1.0 0.9 0.5

Less than adequate ........................................... 5.0 3.6 3.7

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors

Adequate or better............................................ 1.2 1.0 0.6

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.2 3.5 3.0

Interior finishes, trim

Adequate or better............................................ 1.3 1.2 0.3

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.1 3.7 3.5

Plumbing

Adequate or better............................................ 1.1 1.1 0.6

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.0 3.3 2.8

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Adequate or better............................................ 2.0 1.7 0.8

Less than adequate ........................................... 3.5 2.9 3.0

Electric power

Adequate or better............................................ 1.1 1.0 0.6

Less than adequate ........................................... 3.9 4.3 2.9

Electrical lighting

Adequate or better............................................ 1.1 1.0 0.7

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.5 4.0 3.5

Life safety features

Adequate or better............................................ 1.2 1.0 0.7

Less than adequate ........................................... 4.2 4.0 3.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-21

Table 17a.—Standard errors of the age of public schools based upon years since construction of the

main instructional building(s), years since most recent major renovation, and

functional age of the school, by school characteristics: 1999

School characteristic

Years since

construction

Years since most

recent renovation

Functional age

of the school

All public schools............................................. 0.8 0.6 0.6

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 1.0 0.6 0.8

High school ...................................................... 1.6 0.9 0.8

Combined......................................................... 3.8 1.9 2.7

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 1.7 1.4 1.6

300 to 599 ........................................................ 1.5 1.0 1.1

600 or more ...................................................... 1.0 0.6 0.8

Locale

Central city....................................................... 1.2 1.2 1.3

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 1.1 0.8 0.8

Rural/small town .............................................. 1.5 0.9 1.1

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 1.9 1.4 1.4

Midwest ........................................................... 1.5 1.1 1.4

South ................................................................ 1.2 0.7 1.0

West ................................................................. 1.9 1.4 1.3

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 1.7 0.8 1.2

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 1.9 1.5 1.1

21 to 50 percent................................................ 1.4 1.1 1.4

More than 50 percent ....................................... 1.4 1.1 1.2

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 1.6 1.0 1.0

20 to 39 percent................................................ 1.6 1.0 1.1

40 to 69 percent................................................ 1.4 1.0 1.1

70 percent or more ........................................... 1.7 1.5 1.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-22

Table 18a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools according to the

functional age of the school, by school characteristics: 1999

Functional age of the school

School characteristic Less than

5 years old

5-14 years old 15-34 years old

35 or more

 years old

All public schools............................................. 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.7

High school ...................................................... 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.0

Combined......................................................... 8.6 5.8 8.2 5.4

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 4.1 3.7 4.1 3.6

300 to 599 ........................................................ 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.5

600 or more ...................................................... 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.8

Locale

Central city....................................................... 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.9

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 2.9 2.7 2.2 1.9

Rural/small town .............................................. 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.4

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 5.3 4.2 4.6 2.3

Midwest ........................................................... 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.1

South ................................................................ 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.2

West ................................................................. 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 2.6 3.2 3.3 2.5

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 3.6 3.9 2.9 2.8

21 to 50 percent................................................ 3.7 3.1 2.8 3.1

More than 50 percent ....................................... 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.1

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 3.4 3.7 3.1 2.2

20 to 39 percent................................................ 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.7

40 to 69 percent................................................ 3.8 3.0 2.7 2.2

70 percent or more ........................................... 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-23

Table 19a.—Standard errors of the percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they

are underenrolled, at capacity, or overcrowded, by school characteristics: 1999

Underenrolled Overcrowded

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............................................. 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.9

School instructional level

Elementary school............................................ 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.1

High school ...................................................... 2.7 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.8

Combined......................................................... 9.1 7.7 7.6 4.4 3.4

School enrollment size

Less than 300 ................................................... 5.0 4.2 3.4 2.9 1.6

300 to 599 ........................................................ 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.5 1.2

600 or more ...................................................... 1.4 3.4 2.0 1.6 1.8

Locale

Central city....................................................... 3.0 3.3 2.9 1.8 2.3

Urban fringe/large town ................................... 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.0 1.6

Rural/small town .............................................. 2.7 3.2 2.4 2.4 1.3

Region

Northeast.......................................................... 3.3 4.2 4.3 3.9 1.6

Midwest ........................................................... 3.0 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.5

South ................................................................ 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.1 1.6

West ................................................................. 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.2 2.7

Percent minority enrollment

5 percent or less................................................ 3.1 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.2

6 to 20 percent.................................................. 2.7 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.1

21 to 50 percent................................................ 3.8 3.4 3.8 2.4 1.5

More than 50 percent ....................................... 2.8 3.3 3.5 2.4 2.7

Percent of students in school eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

Less than 20 percent......................................... 2.4 3.2 3.3 2.8 1.6

20 to 39 percent................................................ 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.4 1.8

40 to 69 percent................................................ 2.7 4.0 3.4 2.6 2.0

70 percent or more ........................................... 4.0 4.1 3.9 2.6 2.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-24

Table 20a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio

category rating the condition of building features as less than adequate: 1999

Building feature Underenrolled

Enrollment within

5 percent of

capacity

Overcrowded

Roofs................................................................................................................ 2.1 3.2 3.3

Framing, floors, foundations ............................................................................ 1.7 2.4 3.7

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors .......................................................... 2.0 3.0 3.8

Interior finishes, trim........................................................................................ 1.9 3.2 4.1

Plumbing .......................................................................................................... 2.1 3.1 4.1

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning ............................................................... 2.0 3.5 1.5

Electric power .................................................................................................. 2.0 3.1 3.8

Electrical lighting ............................................................................................. 1.8 3.3 3.6

Life safety features........................................................................................... 1.9 3.2 3.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-25

Table 21a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools in each enrollment to capacity ratio

category rating the condition of environmental factors as unsatisfactory: 1999

Environmental factor Underenrolled

Enrollment within

5 percent of

capacity

Overcrowded

Lighting............................................................................................................ 2.0 2.4 2.8

Heating............................................................................................................. 1.5 2.8 3.7

Ventilation........................................................................................................ 2.0 2.8 3.4

Indoor air quality.............................................................................................. 1.6 2.3 3.2

Acoustics or noise control ................................................................................ 1.7 2.7 3.6

Physical security of buildings........................................................................... 1.8 3.4 3.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-26

Table 22a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools that report using various space and

scheduling practices, and the extent to which the practice is used to alleviate

overcrowding: 1999

Extent of use to alleviate overcrowding

Space or scheduling practice

School uses

practice Great Moderate Minor Not at all

Spaces used

Use of portable classrooms............................... 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.7 1.0

Creation of temporary instructional space (e.g.,

in cafeterias or gyms) .................................. 1.5 4.2 3.5 3.7 1.2

Use of portables for other purposes, such as

offices for administration and resource

personnel ..................................................... 0.9 4.9 5.6 5.9 2.4

Use of off-site instructional facilities............... 1.0 4.7 4.9 6.5 4.9

Scheduling

Staggered lunch schedules................................ 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.8

Year-round schedule ........................................ 0.8 6.7 4.9 6.2 8.3

Split-day schedules........................................... 0.7 — — — —

— Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-27

Table 23.—Standard errors for the figures and for data not shown in tables: 1999

Item Estimate Standard error

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one building feature in less

than adequate condition according to the number of building features that are in less than

adequate condition: 1999

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 1...................................................... 24 2.2

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 2...................................................... 16 1.9

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 3...................................................... 15 1.9

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 4...................................................... 9 1.5

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 5...................................................... 10 1.6

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 6...................................................... 7 1.5

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 7...................................................... 6 1.2

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 8...................................................... 7 1.5

Number of building features in less than adequate condition: 9...................................................... 7 1.3

Figure 2: Percentage distribution of public schools with at least one environmental factor

in unsatisfactory condition according to the number of environmental factors that are in

unsatisfactory condition: 1999

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 1.......................................... 32 2.5

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 2.......................................... 30 2.7

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 3.......................................... 13 1.9

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 4.......................................... 9 1.4

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 5.......................................... 8 1.6

Number of environmental factors in less than satisfactory condition: 6.......................................... 8 1.4

Figure 3: Percentage distribution of public schools with facilities-related closures according

to the number of instructional days the school was closed due to inadequacies or problems

with facilities during the 1998-99 school year

1 day ................................................................................................................................................ 60 10.2

2 or 3 days........................................................................................................................................ 30 9.6

5 to 9 days........................................................................................................................................ 10 6.8

Figure 4: Percentage distribution of public schools according to whether there are plans to

make major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any building feature in the next 2

years, by condition of onsite buildings: 1999

All types of buildings in adequate or better condition: Plans to make repairs. ................................ 46 1.8

All types of buildings in adequate or better condition: No plans to make repairs............................ 54 1.8

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: Plans to make repairs............ 67 3.8

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: No plans to make repairs...... 33 3.8

Figure 5: Percentage distribution of public schools according to the functional age of the

school: 1999

Less than 5 years old........................................................................................................................ 32 1.5

5 to 14 years old............................................................................................................................... 28 1.5

15 to 34 years old............................................................................................................................. 26 1.4

35 or more years old ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.4

Figure 6: Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than

adequate condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or at least

one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by functional age category: 1999

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: Less than 5 years................... 14 2.2

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: 5-14 years.............................. 19 2.7

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: 15-34 years........................... 32 3.7

At least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition: 35 years or more .................. 41 5.1

At least one building feature is in less than adequate condition: Less than 5 years.......................... 39 2.4

At least one building feature is in less than adequate condition: 5-14 years.................................... 41 2.7

At least one building feature is in less than adequate condition: 15-34 years.................................. 61 3.2

At least one building feature is in less than adequate condition: 35 years or more.......................... 77 4.9

At least one environmental factor is in unsatisfactory condition: Less than 5 years........................ 34 2.6

At least one environmental factor is in unsatisfactory condition: 5-14 years................................... 34 2.8

At least one environmental factor is in unsatisfactory condition: 15-34 years................................. 51 3.2

At least one environmental factor is in unsatisfactory condition: 35 years or more......................... 67 4.9
B-28

Table 23.—Standard errors for the figures and for data not shown in tables: 1999 (continued)

Item Estimate Standard error

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of public schools in each category of functional age by

whether there are plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements of any

building feature in the next 2 years: 1999

Plans to make at least 1 major repair, renovation, or replacement of a building feature:

Less than 5 years ......................................................................................................................... 49 2.6

Plans to make at least 1 major repair, renovation, or replacement of a building feature:

5-14 years.................................................................................................................................... 40 3.7

Plans to make at least 1 major repair, renovation, or replacement of a building feature:

15-34 years.................................................................................................................................. 61 3.3

Plans to make at least 1 major repair, renovation, or replacement of a building feature:

35 years or more .......................................................................................................................... 56 6.4

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements to building features:

Less than 5 years ......................................................................................................................... 51 2.6

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements to building features:

5-14 years.................................................................................................................................... 60 3.7

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements to building features:

15-34 years.................................................................................................................................. 39 3.3

No plans to make major repairs, renovations, or replacements to building features:

35 years or more .......................................................................................................................... 44 6.4

Figure 8: Percentage distribution of public schools reporting that they are underenrolled,

at capacity, or overcrowded: 1999

Underenrolled by more than 25 percent........................................................................................... 19 1.5

Underenrolled by 6 to 25 percent .................................................................................................... 33 1.7

Enrollment within 5 percent of capacity.......................................................................................... 26 1.5

Overcrowded by 6 to 25 percent ...................................................................................................... 14 1.2

Overcrowded by more than 25 percent ............................................................................................ 8 0.9

Figure 9: Percent of public schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than

adequate condition, at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, or at least

one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition, by enrollment to capacity ratio

category: 1999

At least one type of building in less than adequate condition: Underenrolled .................................. 18 1.8

At least one type of building in less than adequate condition: Enrollment within 5 percent of

capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3.5

At least one type of building in less than adequate condition: Overcrowded ................................... 43 3.7

At least one building feature in less than adequate condition: Underenrolled .................................. 47 2.4

At least one building feature in less than adequate condition: Enrollment within 5 percent of

capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 48 3.2

At least one building feature in less than adequate condition: Overcrowded ................................... 61 3.8

At least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition: Underenrolled................................. 41 2.5

At least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition: Enrollment within 5 percent of

capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 39 3.8

At least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition: Overcrowded .................................. 53 3.6

Figure 10: Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition and mean

number of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory, by enrollment to capacity ratio

category: 1999

Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition: Underenrolled ........................ 3.5 0.19

Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition: Enrollment within 5 percent

of capacity ................................................................................................................................... 3.8 0.35

Mean number of building features in less than adequate condition: Overcrowded.......................... 4.5 0.30

Mean number of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory: Underenrolled .............................. 2.4 0.12

Mean number of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory: Enrollment within 5 percent of

capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 2.6 0.22

Mean number of environmental factors that are unsatisfactory: Overcrowded............................... 2.9 0.18

Chapter 2, section on the presence and overall condition of onsite buildings

Number of students attending schools where at least one type of building was in poor or replace

condition...................................................................................................................................... 3.5 million 486,765
B-29

Table 23.—Standard errors for the figures and for data not shown in tables: 1999

Item Estimate Standard error

Chapter 2, section on the condition of building features

Number of schools reporting at least one less than adequate building feature ................................. 39,500 1,211.5

Average number of building features in less than adequate condition ............................................. 3.8 0.2

Chapter 2, section on costs to bring schools into good overall condition

Number of schools needing to spend money on repairs, renovations, or modernizations to put the

school into good overall condition............................................................................................... 59,400 1,180.2

Total amount needed by all schools................................................................................................. 127 billion 7.2 billion

Average amount needed per school for schools needing to spend money........................................ 2.2 million 117,000

Chapter 3, section on satisfaction with environmental conditions

Number of schools reporting at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition .......................... 33,800 1,286.7

Average number of environmental conditions in unsatisfactory condition ...................................... 2.6 0.1

Chapter 3, section on flexibility of instructional space and energy efficiency

Percent of schools unsatisfied with flexibility of instructional space............................................... 38 1.7

Percent of schools unsatisfied with energy efficiency ..................................................................... 32 1.6

Chapter 3, section on school closures due to facilities problems

Percent of schools that were not closed any instructional days because of facilities problems........ 96 0.7

Percent of schools that were closed for instructional days because of facilities problems............... 4 0.7

Chapter 4, section on plans for construction

Number of schools planning to install new temporary buildings in the next two years ................... 8,100 822.9

Chapter 4, section on plans for major repair, renovation, or replacement of building

features

Number of schools having plans for major repairs, renovations, or replacements in the next 2

years............................................................................................................................................ 39,700 1,280.4

Average number of building features planned for repair or renovation ........................................... 2.7 0.1

Number of schools with at least one type of onsite building in less than adequate condition that

reported no plans for repair, renovation, or replacement in the next 2 years................................ 6,300 709.1

Average number of building features planned for replacement ....................................................... 2.2 0.2

Chapter 6, section on extent of overcrowding

Number of schools that were underenrolled .................................................................................... 40,500 1,416.7

Number of schools at their capacity................................................................................................. 20,400 1,157.5

Number of schools that were overcrowded...................................................................................... 17,400 1,167.6

Chapter 6, footnote in section on school practices used to ease overcrowding

Percent of instructional rooms in temporary structures.................................................................... 6 0.5

Percent of instructional rooms originally designed to serve noninstructional purposes................... 3 0.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Survey on the Condition of

Public School Facilities, 1999.
B-30
C-1

Appendix C

Survey Questionnaire
C-2
C-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. 20208-5651 EXPIRATION DATE: 09/1999

CONDITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM

This survey is authorized by law (P.L. 103-382). While participation in this survey is voluntary, your cooperation is critical to

make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

IF ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE UPDATE DIRECTLY ON LABEL.

Name of Person Completing This Form:_________________________________________________________________

Title/Position:______________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone Number:____________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________________

Best days and times to contact you: ___________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU. PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THIS SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS.

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT:

Lewis (716609) Laurie Lewis at Westat

WESTAT 800-937-8281, Ext. 8284 or 301-251-8284

1650 Research Boulevard Fax: 800-254-0984

Rockville, Maryland 20850 E-mail: lewisl1@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 collection is 1850-0733. The time required to complete this

information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data

resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of

the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651. If you

have any comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: National Center for Education

Statistics, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208.

FRSS Form No. 73, 07/1999
C-4

Information Copy

Do not complete

1. Indicate in Part 1 the overall condition of the original buildings, the attached and/or detached permanent additions,

and the temporary buildings that are on site at this school. In Part 2, indicate the physical condition of each of the

building features listed for this school’s onsite buildings. Refer to the rating scale shown below, and circle one

number for each category of building or building feature. If this school does not have any permanent additions or

any temporary buildings on site, circle “0” for that type of building. Do not circle any NA responses; all schools have

original buildings and the listed building features.

Overall condition includes both physical condition and the ability of the buildings to meet the functional

requirements of instructional programs.

Rating Scale

Excellent: new or easily restorable to “like new” condition; only minimal routine maintenance required.

Good: only routine maintenance or minor repair required.

Adequate: some preventative maintenance and/or corrective repair required.

Fair: fails to meet code and functional requirement in some cases; failure(s) are inconvenient; extensive corrective

maintenance and repair required.

Poor: consistent substandard performance; failure(s) are disruptive and costly; fails most code and functional

requirements; requires constant attention, renovation, or replacement. Major corrective repair or overhaul required.

Replace: Non-operational or significantly substandard performance. Replacement required.

Building type/feature

School

does not

have

Excellent Good Adequate Fair Poor Replace

(Circle one on each line.)

Part 1: Type of Onsite Buildings

a. Original buildings........................ NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Attached and/or detached

permanent additions to original

buildings ..................................... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Temporary buildings (e.g.,

portables, demountables)........... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Part 2: Features of Onsite

Buildings

d. Roofs .......................................... NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

e. Framing, floors, foundations....... NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

f. Exterior walls, finishes, windows,

doors........................................... NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

g. Interior finishes, trim................... NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

h. Plumbing..................................... NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

i. Heating, ventilation, air

conditioning ................................ NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

j. Electric power............................. NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

k. Electrical lighting ........................ NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

l. Life safety features (e.g.,

sprinklers, fire alarms)................ NA 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. What would probably be the total cost of all repairs/renovations/modernizations required to put this school’s onsite

buildings in good overall condition? (Give your best estimate. If this school’s onsite buildings are already in good or

excellent overall condition, enter zero.)

$___________________

3. On which of the sources listed below is this cost estimate based? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Does not apply – already in good or excellent overall condition.................................................................... 1

b. Facilities inspection(s)/assessment(s) performed within the last 3 years by licensed professionals ............ 2

c. Repair/renovation/modernization work already being performed and/or contracted for................................ 3

d. Capital improvement/facilities master plan, schedule, or budget .................................................................. 4

e. My best professional judgment ...................................................................................................................... 5

f. Opinions of other district or school administrators......................................................................................... 6

g. Other (specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 7
C-5

Information Copy

Do not complete

4. How satisfactory or unsatisfactory is each of the following environmental factors in this school’s onsite buildings?

(Circle one on each line.)

Environmental factor Very

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Veryunsatisfactory

(Circle one on each line.)

a. Lighting.......................................... 1 2 3 4

b. Heating.......................................... 1 2 3 4

c. Ventilation ..................................... 1 2 3 4

d. Indoor air quality............................ 1 2 3 4

e. Acoustics or noise control ............. 1 2 3 4

f. Flexibility of instructional space

(e.g., expandability,

convertibility, adaptability)............. 1 2 3 4

g. Energy efficiency........................... 1 2 3 4

h. Physical security of buildings ........ 1 2 3 4

5. What is the status of air conditioning in each of the following areas of this school? (Circle one on each line.)

Area

None air

conditioned

because

not needed

None air

conditioned,

but needed

Some air

conditioned

Mostly air

conditioned

All air

conditioned

(Circle one on each line.)

a. Classrooms .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

b. Administrative offices ............... 1 2 3 4 5

c. Computer labs.......................... 1 2 3 4 5

d. Media centers........................... 1 2 3 4 5

e. Other areas .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

6. How satisfactory or unsatisfactory is the air conditioning in each of the following areas of the school? If an area is

not air conditioned, then circle “0” for that area. (Circle one on each line.)

Area

Area is not

air

conditioned

Very

satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very

unsatisfactory

(Circle one on each line.)

a. Classrooms .............................. 0 1 2 3 4

b. Administrative offices ............... 0 1 2 3 4

c. Computer labs.......................... 0 1 2 3 4

d. Media centers........................... 0 1 2 3 4

e. Other areas .............................. 0 1 2 3 4

7. For how many instructional days, if any, was this school closed because of facilities inadequacies or problems

during the 1998-1999 school year? (Enter “0” if none.) ____________

8. Is there a written long-range educational facilities plan for this school? Yes...... 1 No...... 2

9. In what year was this school’s main instructional building constructed? ____________

10. In what year was the last major renovation of the main instructional building? ____________

11. Which of the following construction projects, if any, are planned for this school in the next 2 years? (Circle one on

each line.)

Yes No

a. Build new attached and/or detached permanent additions to original buildings

(e.g., a new classroom wing or gymnasium) .......................................................................................1 2

b. Install new temporary buildings (i.e., portables, demountables, or other temporary structures)........1 2
C-6

Information Copy

Do not complete

12. Which of the following building features or systems in this school, if any, have major repairs, renovations, or

replacements planned for the next 2 years? Do not include preventive maintenance or minor repairs. (Circle one

on each line.)

Building feature/system

No major repair,

renovation, or

replacement

planned

Major repair or

renovation Replacement

(Circle one on each line.)

a. Roofs............................................................ 1 2 3

b. Framing, floors, foundations ........................ 1 2 3

c. Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors ...... 1 2 3

d. Interior finishes, trim..................................... 1 2 3

e. Plumbing ...................................................... 1 2 3

f. Heating, ventilation, air conditioning ............ 1 2 3

g. Electric power............................................... 1 2 3

h. Electrical lighting .......................................... 1 2 3

i. Life safety features (e.g., sprinklers, fire

alarms) ......................................................... 1 2 3

13. What is the total number of instructional rooms in this school? (Include all rooms used for any instructional purpose,

including classrooms, computer and other labs, media centers, etc. Include portables and other temporary

instructional space.) ____________

14. How many of these instructional rooms are temporary structures (e.g., portables, demountables)? (Enter “0” if

none.) ____________

15. How many of these instructional rooms, if any, were initially designed to serve noninstructional purposes? (Enter

“0” if none.) ____________

16. How many students is this school currently designed to serve? (Do not include space provided by portables and

other temporary instructional space. If this school consists entirely of temporary buildings, call Westat at 800-937-

8281, ext. 8284, for instructions.) ____________

17. On October 1, 1998, how many students were enrolled in this school? ____________

18. For each practice listed below, indicate whether or not this school uses the practice, and if used, to what extent it is

used as a means of alleviating overcrowding at the school.

School uses

practice

If used, extent to which it is used

to alleviate overcrowding Practice

Yes No Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Minor

extent

Not

at all

a. Year-round schedule.............................. 1 2 1 2 3 4

b. Split-day schedules................................ 1 2 1 2 3 4

c. Staggered lunch schedules.................... 1 2 1 2 3 4

d. Use of off-site instructional facilities....... 1 2 1 2 3 4

e. Use of portable classrooms. .................. 1 2 1 2 3 4

f. Use of portables for other purposes,

such as offices for administration and

resource personnel. ............................... 1 2 1 2 3 4

g. Creation of temporary instructional

space (e.g., in cafeterias or gyms)......... 1 2 1 2 3 4

19. Which of the following grades did this school offer during the 1998-1999 school year? (Circle all that apply.)

Head Start PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded

20. During the 1998-1999 school year, what percentage of the students at this school were eligible for the federally

funded free or reduced-price lunch program? _________ %