Almost one-half of the nation’s 80,000 public elementary and secondary schools are located in rural or small town areas; one-quarter, in urban fringes or large towns; and one-quarter, in central cities. About 70 percent of these schools serve 27 million elementary students, 24 percent serve 13.8 million secondary students, and 4 percent serve about 1 million students in combined elementary and secondary and other schools. More than one-half of the students in central city schools are members of a minority group, compared with 28 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of students in urban fringe/large towns and rural/small town public schools. The average new elementary school today costs about $6 million, and the average secondary school, about $15 million to construct and has up to 150,000 square feet. Accordingly, a school today is likely to have more than one building—an original building, some permanent additions to that building, and a variety of temporary buildings—each built at different times. Most well-maintained and periodically renovated buildings will continue to have a useful life equivalent to a new building. Several state courts as well as the Congress have recognized that the quality of the learning environment affects the education children receive. Children’s attending school in decent facilities is crucial to a high-quality learning environment. The term “decent facilities” was specifically defined by one court as those that are “structurally safe, contain fire safety measures, sufficient exits, an adequate and safe water supply, an adequate sewage disposal system, sufficient and sanitary toilet facilities and plumbing fixtures, adequate storage, adequate light, be in good repair and attractively painted as well as contain acoustics for noise control.” Problems with school facilities, however, continue to surface. Many school facilities nationwide are in substandard condition and need major repairs due to leaking roofs, plumbing problems, and inadequate heating systems or other system failures, according to widely quoted studiesconducted in recent years. Although these studies document some problems and provide much anecdotal information, different methodological problems limited their usefulness. Nevertheless, facility studies conducted by several states tend to corroborate these findings. Furthermore, the Department of Education has not assessed the condition of the nation’s school facilities since 1965, when it found that almost one-half of schools nationwide had at least one defect in building features such as structural soundness or heating. Although localities generally finance construction and repair, with states playing varying roles, federal programs provide some money to help localities offset the impact of federal activities (such as Impact Aid to improve accessibility for the disabled) and to manage hazardous materials. Frequently, these programs do not offset all costs, however. For example, federal assistance provided for asbestos management under the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984 did not meet the needs of all affected schools. From 1988 through 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 1,746 qualified applications totaling $599 million but only awarded $157 million to 586 school districts it considered to have the worst asbestos problems. EPA knew of the shortfall in federal assistance but believed that state and local governments should bear these costs. Because of the perception that federal programs—as well as state and local financing mechanisms—did not address the serious facilities needs of many of America’s schools, the Congress passed the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994. The Congress then appropriated $100 million for grants to schools for repair, renovation, alteration, or construction. These funds were eliminated in 1995, however, by legislative efforts to balance the budget. As we previously reported, about one-third of schools nationwide with 14 million students reported at least one entire building—original, additional, or temporary—in need of extensive repair or replacement. Moreover, about 60 percent of schools nationwide, many in otherwise adequate condition, reported needing extensive repair, overhaul, or replacement of at least one major building feature, including roofs; framing, floors, and foundations; exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors; interior finishes and trims; plumbing and heating; ventilation and air conditioning; electrical power; electrical lighting; and life safety codes. Most of these schools needed multiple features repaired. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems were the most frequently reported building feature in need of such repair. Furthermore, schools with inadequate buildings and building features may be among the least prepared for 21st century technology needs. A large number of schools affecting many children also have unsatisfactory environmental conditions. Environmental factors we asked about included lighting, heating, ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics for noise control, and energy efficiency and physical security of buildings.About 58 percent of schools nationwide reported at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. About 13 percent of schools reported five or more unsatisfactory conditions. Those conditions most frequently reported to be unsatisfactory were acoustics for noise control, ventilation, and physical security. We estimate that about 25 million students nationwide are attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. In addition to these environmental problems, three-quarters of schools responding to our survey said they had already spent funds during the last 3 years on requirements to remove or correct hazardous substances, such as asbestos (51 percent), lead in water or paint (21 percent), materials in underground storage tanks such as fuel oil (15 percent), or radon (15 percent). Still, two-thirds reported they must spend funds in the next 3 years to comply with these same requirements—asbestos management (42 percent), lead (16 percent), underground storage tanks (10 percent), and radon (10 percent). The physical conditions reported by schools varied widely by regional and state locations and by other characteristics such as community type, percentage of minority and poor students served, and size and level of school. (See app. II for data on the condition of buildings and building features.) The percentage of schools reporting inadequate buildings and inadequate building features varied by location and community type as well as by student and school characteristics. Figures 1 and 2 show the differences by state. About 40 percent of the states and the western region overall had a proportion of schools that was more than the national average reporting at least one building (33 percent) or building feature (59 percent) in need of repair. States in which over 65 percent of the schools reported at least one inadequate building feature included Alaska, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia. Although these schools were reported in every location, the largest proportion of such schools was in central cities—they were schools serving 50 percent or more minority or 70 percent or more poor students. For example, over 38 percent of schools in central cities reported at least one inadequate building, 9 percentage points higher than schools located in the urban fringe of large cities. Furthermore, 67 percent of central city schools (with almost 10 million students) reported at least one building feature needing repair or replacement compared with the overall average of 59 percent. Schools of all levels had nearly the same percentage of schools reporting at least one inadequate building, building feature, or both. Recent studies explain somewhat these concentrations of school facilities problems. For example, a Department of Education study on school spending reported that, in central cities, where greater numbers of students live in poverty and cost more to educate than nonpoor students, schools by necessity must spend a greater portion of limited funds on instruction and less on repairing buildings or buying or repairing equipment. Another study of urban schools with a more detailed analysis of this problem reported that an urban school district actually spends about 3.5 percent of its budget on facilities maintenance. Of this amount, however, 85 percent is for emergency repairs, and only the small amount remaining is spent on preventive maintenance. This, of course, leads to deferred maintenance and escalated costs. During our visits to schools in large central cities, we found that the maintenance and repair budget in some districts was even lower—as little as 2 percent of the overall budget. To put these amounts in perspective, in one urban district, the small amount allocated was only adequate to paint classrooms every 100 years and replace floor coverings every 50 years. One respondent commenting on the lack of funds said, “There needs to be standards developed that say a certain amount will always be available to facilities for repairs and maintenance. Maybe 5% of replacement cost each year....” Although environmental problems were widespread—only nine states reported 50 percent or more of their schools in satisfactory environmental condition (see fig. 3)—greater concentrations of problems were found in certain states and in the western region of the country. For example, over 70 percent of the schools in seven states—Alaska, California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and West Virginia—reported at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. About 13 percent of all schools reported five or more unsatisfactory conditions. Alaska reported 30 percent of its schools in this condition. Other comparisons also showed differences in environmental conditions. High concentrations of schools with unsatisfactory environmental conditions were reported by schools in central cities, schools with 50.5 percent or more of minority students, and schools with 70 or more percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; 65 percent of central city schools had at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. (See app. III for data on environmental conditions.) We estimated that schools nationwide needed to spend about $112 billion to repair or upgrade them into good overall condition. (See app. IV for data on estimated spending needs.) Given the confidence interval, the actual figure may be between $105 billion and $120 billion. Regarding the amount needed per school, the average school in America reported needing about $1.7 million to repair and upgrade schools to good overall condition. Only 16 percent of schools said that funding was not needed. About 21 percent reported needing to spend above the national average of $1.7 million per school. However, only 1 percent of schools reported needing to spend more than $15 million on any one school. (See table I.1 in app. I for the frequency distribution of amounts reported needed to repair or upgrade schools to good overall condition.) By region, the West and the Northeast each reported that about 24 percent of their schools needed above average spending. By state, the percent of schools needing to spend money to repair or upgrade schools to good overall condition ranged from 62 percent in Georgia to 97 percent in Delaware. The range in percent of schools reporting needing to spend more than the national average was from 6.0 percent of schools in Montana to about 48 percent in the District of Columbia. About 31 percent of the states reported needing above average spending on more than 25 percent of their schools. In contrast, the percent of schools in each state reporting that no money was needed ranged from a low of 3 percent in Delaware to a high of 38 percent in Georgia. Fewer schools reported having both at least one unsatisfactory building and at least one unsatisfactory building feature. By state, the range was from about 16 percent of buildings in Iowa to about 50 percent in the District of Columbia. Predictably, the average cost estimated for upgrading these schools was significantly more than for all schools: about $3.8 million per school. Schools in central cities estimated needing the most funding to restore schools to good condition. Rural schools estimated needing the least funding. Large schools, secondary schools, schools serving 50.5 percent or more minorities, and schools serving 70 percent or more of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch had the largest concentrations of schools requiring above average expenditures. Although a topic of much speculation, little was known about the amount of money spent or needed to be spent by schools nationwide to complywith federal mandates. To determine what aspect of complying with these mandates has cost the most and what school officials think needs to be spent for schools to further comply with federal mandates, we asked a general set of questions about major types of mandates: removal or management of hazardous materials (asbestos, underground storage tanks, radon, and lead in paint/water) and other mandated requirements, such as those governing pesticides or other such chemicals and accessibility for the disabled. We asked what school officials believed they had spent in the past 3 years to gauge such spending as tempered by the realities of school budgets. We asked what school officials believed they needed to spend in the next 3 years to gauge need while not constraining respondents’ estimates by what they thought feasible. Since our purpose was neither to check the accuracy of school officials’ understanding of these statutes nor to conduct a compliance audit, we did not (1) cite or specify the contents of any of the specific statutes (see the wording of the questions in app. VI), (2) verify the information provided to us, or (3) assess compliance with federal mandates in our site visits. We reported the national-level information on federal mandates in our first report on school facilities’ condition. We reported the detailed analyses of the accessibility data in School Facilities: Accessibility for the Disabled Still an Issue (GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29, 1995). (See app. V for spending needs data on asbestos and all federal mandates, including asbestos.) In our first report in this series, we said that school officials reported that compliance with federal mandates only accounted for about 10 percent of the $112 billion needed to repair and upgrade schools. Three-quarters of all schools nationwide reported having spent $3.8 billion in the last 3 years to comply with federal mandates, and two-thirds of all schools reported needing an additional $11 billion over the next 3 years to comply with federal mandates. Schools nationwide estimated that spending on accessibility will supplant spending on asbestos abatement as the largest share of spending on federal mandates in the next 3 years. Regarding the amounts reported spent in the past 3 years, only 14 percent of schools reported having spent above the average of $67,000 on all federal mandates, 11 percent reported having spent above the average of $43,000 on asbestos 10 percent reported having spent above the average of $40,000 on accessibility for the disabled. In contrast, regarding the amounts schools reported needed to be spent in the next 3 years, 15 percent reported needing to spend above the average of $177,000 per school on all federal mandates, 9 percent of schools reported needing to spend above the average of $71,000 on asbestos, and 12 percent reported needing to spend above the average of $124,000 on accessibility for the disabled. Of those schools reporting needing to spend money on federal mandates in the next 3 years, the amounts varied widely—individual school estimates of spending in the next 3 years ranged from $4.00 to $22 million. (See table I.1 in app. 1 for the distribution of the amounts reported.) The average estimate was $177,000 per school. Five states (Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) and the District of Columbia estimated that over a third of their schools’ spending on federal mandates will be above average. The estimates of spending on federal mandates are very complex, however. For example, we know that 79 percent of Arizona’s schools reported needing to spend money on federal mandates. Of these schools, 21 percent reported spending needs to be above average. Meanwhile, at least 60 percent of Connecticut’s schools reported needing to spend money on federal mandates—a much lower percentage than Arizona. However, of those Connecticut schools that did need to spend, 47 percent estimated needing to spend above the national average. Schools most likely to report above average spending on federal mandates were those in central cities, those in the Midwest and the Northeast, large schools, secondary schools, and those schools in which greater than 50.5 percent of the students are minority. (See app. V.) About a third of the students in America, about 14 million, attended schools with one inadequate building. About 60 percent of the students in America, about 25 million, attended schools with at least one inadequate building feature. The same number—about 25 million—attended school in buildings with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition (see fig. 4). About 12 million students (30 percent) attended schools with both problems—at least one inadequate building and one inadequate building feature. (See apps. II and III for data on students affected by inadequate or unsatisfactory conditions.) The greatest percentage of students attending schools with at least one inadequate building, building feature, or unsatisfactory environmental condition or with multiple unsatisfactory conditions were in the West,although the South had the greatest number of students attending these schools. For example, 42 percent or about 4 million students in the West attended schools reporting at least one inadequate building. Although the South had only 32 percent of its students attending such schools, that amounted to 4.7 million students. The greatest percentage and number of students attending schools with at least one inadequate building were found in central cities (38 percent or 5.6 million students), where the student body was 50.5 percent or more minority (42 percent or 4.8 million students), and where 70 percent or more of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (40 percent or 3.2 million students). Large and small schools had about the same percent of schools affected (about 33 percent), but secondary schools with at least one inadequate building housed five times as many students (7.6 million) as elementary schools. Regarding level of school, combined elementary and secondary schools had the greatest percentage of students attending schools with at least one inadequate building (35 percent). The greatest number of students attending schools reporting at least one inadequate building were in elementary schools (8.3 million). Similar patterns were observed for schools reporting inadequate building features, although the number of students affected was much larger. For example, 9.7 million or 67 percent of students in central cities attended schools reporting at least one inadequate building feature, such as plumbing. Regarding students attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition, the region with the highest percentage of schools affected was the West (68 percent), although the greatest concentration of students affected was in the South (8.0 million). By other characteristics, both the largest percentage and greatest number of students were located in central cities (65 percent or 9.4 million students), in large schools (61 percent or 13.8 million students), in student populations that had 50.5 percent or more minority enrollment (70 percent or 7.7 million), or in student populations that had 70 percent or more of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (65 percent or 5 million students). However, combined (elementary and secondary) schools had the largest percent of students attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition (65 percent), but the largest concentration of students was reported in elementary schools (15.1 million students). Data reported by school officials on the condition of America’s schools highlight the complexity of the differences. New schools in excellent physical condition, conforming to all federal, state, and local mandates, may reside a few blocks from a functioning school in poor physical condition. Although the two-thirds of schools reported to be in satisfactory condition are found in every state, the one-third of schools reportedly not in satisfactory condition are also found in every state. Meanwhile, as widespread as these problems are, schools in unsatisfactory physical and environmental condition—in which over 14 million children are educated—are concentrated in central cities and serve large populations of poor or minority students. Some states have above average expenditures to repair and upgrade school facilities, but all states are affected. Similarly, virtually all communities, even some of the wealthiest, are wondering how to address school infrastructure needs while balancing them with other community priorities. The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested parties and make copies available to others upon request. Copies of this report are also being sent to appropriate House and Senate Committees and all members of the Congress, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. To determine the extent to which America’s 80,000 schools have the physical capacity to support 21st century technology and education reform for all students, we surveyed a national sample of public schools and their associated districts and augmented the surveys with visits to selected schools’ districts. We used various experts to advise us on the design and analysis of this project. We sent surveys to a nationally representative sample of about 10,000 public schools in over 5,000 associated school districts. For our sample, we used the public school sample for the Department of Education’s 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which is a multifaceted, nationally representative survey sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and administered by the Bureau of the Census. We asked about (1) the physical condition of buildings and major building features, such as roofs, framing, floors, and foundations; (2) the status of environmental conditions, such as lighting, heating, and ventilation; (3) how well schools could meet selected functional requirements of education reforms, such as having space for small- and large-group instruction; (4) the sufficiency of data, voice, and video technologies and the infrastructure to support these technologies; (5) the amount schools had spent in the last 3 years or planned to spend in the next 3 years on selected federal mandates; and (6) an estimate of the total cost of needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put all buildings in good overall condition. (See app. VI for a copy of the survey.) We directed the survey to those officials who are most knowledgeable about facilities—such as facilities directors and other central office administrators of the districts that housed our sampled schools. Our analyses are based on responses from 78 percent of the schools sampled. Analyses of nonrespondent characteristics showed them to be similar to respondents. Findings from the survey have been statistically adjusted (weighted) to produce estimates that are representative at national and state levels. All data are self-reported, and we did not independently verify their accuracy. We conducted the bulk of our study between January 1994 and February 1995 (additional analyses were done through May 1996) in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For our review of the physical condition of America’s schools, we wanted to determine physical condition and spending as perceived by the most knowledgeable school district personnel. To accomplish this, we mailed questionnaires to superintendents of school districts associated with a nationally representative sample of public schools. We asked the superintendents to have district personnel, such as facilities directors who were very familiar with school facilities, answer the questionnaires. The questionnaires gathered information about a variety of school facility issues, including spending associated with federal mandates. For our school sample, we used the sample for the 1993-94 SASS. The 1993-94 SASS sample is designed to give several types of estimates, including both national and state-level estimates. It is necessarily a very complex sample. Essentially, however, it is stratified by state and grade level (elementary, secondary, and combined). It also has separate strata for schools with large Native American populations and for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. A detailed description of the sample and discussion of the sampling issues is contained in NCES’ technical report on the 1993-94 SASS sample. We mailed our questionnaires to 9,956 sampled schools in 5,459 associated districts across the country in May 1994. We did a follow-up mailing in July 1994 and again in October 1994. After each mailing, we telephoned nonresponding districts to encourage their responses. We accepted returned questionnaires through early January 1995. Of the 9,956 schools in the original sample, 393 were found to be ineligible for our survey. Subtracting these ineligible schools from our original sample yielded an adjusted sample of 9,563 schools. The number of completed, usable school questionnaires returned was 7,478. Dividing the number of completed, usable returns by the adjusted sample yielded a school response rate of 78 percent. We compared nonrespondents with respondents by urbanicity, location, state, race and ethnicity, and poverty and found few notable differences between the two groups. On the basis of this information, we assumed that our respondents did not differ significantly from the nonrespondents.Therefore, we weighted the respondent data to adjust for nonresponse and yield representative national estimates. Analyses in this report on spending are based on data from three questions: questions 11, 13, and 14 (see app. VI). In all cases, the resulting distributions were severely skewed, making no single measure of central tendency adequate to describe the distribution. For an example, see table I.1. Total (percent)12,943 (16) $1 to less than $100 22 (0) $100 to less than $1,000 879 (1) $1,000 to less than $100,000 13,955 (18) $100,000 to less than $1 million 25,311 (32) $1 million to less than $6 million 22,497 (28) $6 million to less than $15 million 2,865 (4) $15 million to less than $50 million 943 (1) $50 million to less than $100 million 16 (0) $100 million or more 23 (0) Total (percent) 56,500 (71) 20,053 (25) 2,900 (4) 79,454 (100) Slight discrepancies in row and column totals are due to rounding. We only excluded outliers from our analyses for overwhelming reasons. For this survey, although less than 2 percent reported needing above $15 million, with the exception of one case discussed below, we thought it proper to include all of them. Although the average school construction cost in 1994 was $6 million for an elementary school and $15 million for a high school, secondary schools in urban areas can run more than $100 million. For example, recently constructed Stuyvesant High School in New York cost $151 million to build. So, although not frequent, spending over $100 million is plausible. Also, because school officials may decide that replacing the old school through new construction is more prudent than repairing and upgrading an old building, we concluded that schools in bad condition that put down replacement cost in the survey for the “amount needed” were reasonable in doing so. Our initial analyses in our first report on school facilities produced estimates at a national level. Upon examining data for reporting state-level estimates, we found an amount reported in one state that appeared to be out of range for a realistic estimate of the specific item in question. Because sample surveys use weights to produce population estimates and this particular respondent carried a large weight, this extreme amount greatly affected survey results for this item. Therefore, we adjusted this response to equal the median of the amounts reported for this item by other respondents in the same state. Unless otherwise noted, national averages in this report that involve this item in the computation use this adjusted amount. Because of the wide range of amounts reported, sampling errors, particularly for state-level data, were particularly problematic (see the “Sampling Errors” section of this app.). Acceptable levels of precision were possible for the national average of dollar amounts needed per school, and for the percent of schools above and below average. We felt that giving the percent above and below average would give the reader a sense of the skewness of the data. We also needed to anchor these percentages with some dollar figures. The only dollar figures that were not affected by the sampling error problem were the actual dollar amounts reported in our sample. All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent to which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole population had received the questionnaire. Since the whole population does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the true size of the sampling error cannot be known. It can be estimated, however, from the responses to the survey. The estimate of sampling error depends largely on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in the data. Variability in the data is particularly relevant to this report. Analyses are based on the dollar amount reported by schools in response to questions about the total cost of all repairs/renovations/modernizations required to put school buildings into good overall condition and past and future spending for selected federal mandates. The wide range of dollar amounts reported reduced the amount of precision with which we could produce dollar estimates. For this reason, we limited our dollar estimates to a national-level estimate of average and total dollars spent. We then examined proportions of schools that reported spending in these categories by a number of variables of interest. A similar situation exists for the number of students affected by inadequate or unsatisfactory conditions. We did not report out the number of students affected for the state analyses because sampling errors for most states were too high (greater than – 25 percent). We could, however, report out the number of students for the other analyses (region, community type, school level, school size, proportion of minority students, and proportion of students on free or reduced-price lunch). In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other types of systematic error or bias that can affect results. This is especially true when respondents are asked to answer questions of a sensitive nature or inherently subject to error. Lack of understanding of these issues can also result in systematic error. Bias can affect both response rates and the way respondents answer particular questions. We cannot assess the magnitude of the effect of bias, if any, on survey results. Rather, possibilities of bias can only be identified and accounted for when interpreting results. This survey had three major possible sources of bias: (1) bias inherent in all self-ratings or self-reports, (2) the complexity of this particular task, and (3) sensitivity of compliance issues. Bias inherent in self-rating may impact survey results because integrity of the data depends upon respondents’ providing honest and accurate answers to survey questions. The results of this report are affected by the extent to which respondents accurately reported expenditures and the extent to which they provided accurate estimates for projected spending. When, as in this case, responses are not verified, the possibility of this kind of bias always exists. Second, assessing the physical condition of buildings is also a very complex and technical undertaking. Moreover, many facilities problems, particularly the most serious and dangerous, are not visible to the naked eye. Further, any dollar estimates made of the cost to repair, retrofit, upgrade, or renovate are just that, estimates, unless the school has recently completed such work. The only way school officials actually know what such work costs is to put it out for bid. Even then, cost changes may occur before the contracted work is completed. Therefore, estimates and evaluations reported are subject to inaccuracies. A third kind of bias that may occur results from the sensitivity of compliance issues. In this case, our interest in securing information on compliance with federal mandates put us in a highly sensitive area. For example, respondents may have perceived that accurately reporting problems in providing access for disabled students would make the school vulnerable to lawsuits, despite assurances of confidentiality. Consequently, in such sensitive areas, schools may have tended toward underreporting or made conservative estimates. Definitions are based on those used for the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) conducted by the Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. We used SASS designations for central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/small town for community type. A large central city (a central city of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)) with population greater than or equal to 400,000 or a population density greater than or equal to 6,000 per square mile) or a mid-size central city (a central city of an SMSA but not designated a large central city). Urban fringe of a large or mid-size central city (a place within an SMSA of a large or mid-size central city and defined as urban by the Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not within an SMSA but with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and defined as urban by the Bureau of the Census). Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not within an SMSA, with a population of less than 25,000, but greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as urban by the Bureau of the Census). We used elementary, secondary, and combined as defined below for school level. Elementary—A school that had grade six or lower or “ungraded” and no grade higher than the eighth. Secondary—A school that had no grade lower than the seventh or “ungraded” and had grade seven or higher. Combined—A school that had grades higher than the eighth and lower than the seventh. We designated schools as small, medium, or large according to school enrollment as follows: Small—A school with fewer than 300 students. Medium—A school with more than 299 but fewer than 600 students. Large—A school with more 600 students or more. We used the following SASS designations for minority students: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other culture or origin); and Black (not of Hispanic origin). We used the following four designations for region: Northeast—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Midwest—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. South—Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. West—Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. This calculation was based on survey question 4 (“What was the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) students enrolled in this school around the first of October 1993?”) and survey question 25 (“Around the first of October 1993, how many applicants in this school were approved for the National School Lunch Program?”). We asked respondents to rank the overall condition of buildings and selected building features on an adequacy scale: excellent, good, adequate, fair, poor, or replace (see question 10 in app. VI for definitions). Overall condition includes both physical condition and the ability of the buildings to meet the functional requirements of instructional programs. The tables in this appendix show the percentage of schools ranking the condition of buildings and selected building features as fair, poor, or replace (inadequate). Specifically, tables II.1 and II.2 show the estimated percentage of schools with inadequate buildings by building type. Tables II.3 and II.4 include the results for both buildings and building features, showing the estimated percentage of schools with at least one inadequate building, at least one inadequate building feature, or both. Tables II.5 through II.13 focus on individual building features, showing the estimated percentage of schools with selected inadequate building features. With the exception of the state analyses, the tables on building features show the estimated number of students attending schools with inadequate conditions in addition to the estimated percentage of schools. We did not report these numbers for the state analyses due to particularly high sampling errors associated with these data. Nationwide, about a third of the schools reported at least one entire building in need of extensive repair or replacement, and about 57 percent of schools, many in otherwise adequate condition, reported needing extensive repair, overhaul, or replacement of at least one major building feature. Percent of schools reporting at least one inadequate on-site building (continued) Percent of schools reporting at least one inadequate on-site building (continued) Percent of schools reporting at least one inadequate on-site building Sampling errors are equal to or greater than 16 percentage points but less than 20 percentage points. At least one inadequate building and building feature (continued) At least one inadequate building Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) At least one inadequate building Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Proportion of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch points unless otherwise noted. Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors (continued) Total percent of schools with at least one inadequate building feature(continued) Total percent of schools with at least one inadequate building feature(continued) Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) (Table notes on next page) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Framing, floors, and foundations Number of students (000s) Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one inadequate building feature Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. We asked school officials to rate how satisfactory or unsatisfactory a set of environmental conditions (which we called “environmental factors” in the survey) were in the school’s on-site buildings. We reported the analyses of responses of other environmental conditions—lighting, heating, ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics for noise control, flexibility of instructional space, and physical security of buildings—in a previous report in this series, School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95, Apr. 4, 1995). Nationwide, about 69 percent of schools reported at least one unsatisfactory condition: about 41 percent reported unsatisfactory energy efficiency; about 28 percent of schools reported unsatisfactory acoustics for noise control; about 27 percent reported unsatisfactory ventilation; about 24 percent reported unsatisfactory physical security of buildings; about 19 percent reported unsatisfactory heating; about 19 percent reported unsatisfactory indoor air quality; and about 16 percent reported unsatisfactory lighting. This appendix provides data on state and other analyses of the number of unsatisfactory environmental factors reported by schools. In addition to showing the estimated percentage of schools with unsatisfactory environmental conditions, table III.5 through III.10 also show the estimated number of students attending these schools. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Proportion of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch 20 to less than 40 percent 40 to less than 70 percent 5.5 to less than 20.5 percent 20.5 to less than 50.5 percent 16.9 (continued) Total percent of schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition(continued) Total percent of schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition(continued) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. We elected not to report an estimate due to the sampling error being greater than 25 percentage points. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. We elected not to report an estimate due to the sampling error being greater than 25 percentage points. Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) (Table notes on next page) points unless otherwise noted. Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) Number of students (000s) (continued) Number of students (000s) At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition Number of students (000s) points unless otherwise noted. The tables in this appendix show funding needed to bring schools into good overall condition nationwide, by state, and by other characteristics. Table IV.1 presents funding needs nationwide using dollar estimates. The confidence interval is presented as a percent. Table IV.2 presents estimated funding needs by state. Unfortunately, sampling errors of the average dollar amounts spent in each state were so high, in so many cases, that we had to find an alternate means of presenting funding needs. In this table we presented the percent of schools reporting needing to spend money to repair or upgrade schools to good overall condition and the percent of schools in each state reporting funding needs above and below the national average of $1.7 million per school. In addition, to convey an idea of the actual reported funding needs in each state, we presented the actual range of amounts reported by schools in our sample. Because these are data from the sample schools, in the universe of schools the lowest amount could be lower and the highest amount could be higher. Table IV.3 is similar in presentation to table IV.2 but presents estimated funding needs by other characteristics—community type, geographic region, school size, school level, poverty (proportion of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch), and proportion of minority students. 95-percent confidence interval (percent) Total amount estimated needed to put America’s schools into good overall condition Of those schools needing to spend money to bring them into good overall condition Average amount estimated needed per school (total) Range of funding needs reported by average ($1,700,000) (continued) Range of funding needs reported by average ($1,700,000) Range of funding needs reported by average ($1,700,000) Spending on federal mandates accounts for about 10 percent of the total reported spending needed to bring schools into good overall condition. This appendix presents detailed analyses on reported spending in the past 3 years and estimated spending needs for the next 3 years to comply with all federal mandates and asbestos management. Detailed analyses for reported spending on accessibility can be found in School Facilities: Accessibility for the Disabled Still an Issue (GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29, 1995). We did not do detailed analyses on other federal mandates (lead in water/paint, radon, underground storage tanks, pesticides, other hazardous chemicals, and the like) because they could not be reported with sufficient precision. About 56 percent of schools nationwide (an estimated 40,000 schools) spent money on federal mandates in the last 3 years, an average of about $43,000 per school. About 66 percent of schools nationwide estimated needing to spend money on all federal mandates in the next 3 years, an average of about $177,000 per school. Nationwide, 56 percent of schools reported having spent money on asbestos management in the past 3 years, yet about 65 percent estimated needing to spend money in the next 3 years. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Spending needed on one or more mandates(continued) Spending needed on one or more mandates13.9 (continued) Table V.7: Next 3 Years—Money Estimated Needed for All Federal Mandates by Other Characteristics Spending needed on one or more mandates(continued) Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Table V.9: Last 3 Years—Money Reported Needed and Spent on Asbestos by State (continued) (continued) (continued) We elected not to report an estimate due to the sampling error being greater than 25 percentage points. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Proportion of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch 20 to less than 40 percent 40 to less than 70 percent 5.5 to less than 20.5 percent 20.5 to less than 50.5 percent in the Northeast, which had a sampling error of 5.6 percentage points. (continued) 18.4 (continued) We elected not to report an estimate due to the sampling error being greater than 25 percentage points. Small (1-299 students) Medium (300-599 students) Large (600+ students) Proportion of students approved for free or reduced-price lunch 20 to less than 40 percent 40 to less than 70 percent 5.5 to less than 20.5 percent 20.5 to less than 50.5 percent in the Northeast, which had a sampling error of 5.7 percentage points. D. Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst Ella Cleveland, Senior Evaluator Wayne C. Dow, Senior Social Science Analyst Susan J. Lawless, Senior Evaluator Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Evaluator Linda Y. McIver, Senior Evaluator Deborah L. McCormick, Senior Social Science Analyst Nancy Purvine, Evaluator Edna M. Saltzman, Project Manager Kathleen Ward, Senior Analyst The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the condition of the nation's school buildings, focusing on differences in the: (1) condition of schools; (2) amount of funding needed to repair or upgrade facilities; and (3) number of students attending schools in inadequate condition. GAO found that: (1) the condition of schools, the funding needed to repair or upgrade facilities, and the number of students attending schools in inadequate condition all differed by location, community type, percentage of minority and disadvantaged students, and school level and size; (2) the amounts schools and states needed to bring schools into good condition varied widely; (3) schools' environmental and physical conditions varied widely by region and states and by community type, percentage of minority and poor students served, and school size and level; (4) the largest percentage of schools that had inadequate environmental and physical conditions were in the western United States and in central cities that served minority and poor students; (5) schools needed to spend about $112 billion, or an average of $1.7 million per school, to repair or upgrade them to good overall condition; (6) although the amount of funding needed by state, school, and region varied, central city schools serving minority and poor students required the most funding; (7) schools estimated that they will require $9.2 billion over three years to comply with federal mandates; and (8) about one quarter to one third of the nation's students attend schools with one inadequate building, at least one inadequate building feature, and at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition.