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.)