School Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st
Century (Letter Report, 04/04/95, GAO/HEHS-95-95).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed whether America's
schools: (1) provide the key facilities requirements and environmental
conditions for education reform and improvement; (2) have appropriate
technologies and the facility infrastructure to support new
technologies; and (3) have the physical capacity to support learning
into the 21st century.

GAO found that: (1) most schools are unprepared for the 21st century;
(2) at least three-quarters of schools have sufficient computers and
televisions, although they do not have the infrastructure to fully use
these technologies; (3) one-third of schools with sufficient computers
are not networked, limiting their access to available electronic
information; (4) about 40 percent of schools cannot adequately meet the
functional requirements for laboratory science or large-group
instruction; (5) about 54 percent of schools have unsatisfactory
instructional space to implement effective teaching strategies; (6)
schools in the same district often differ because the construction of
new facilities takes precedent over maintaining and renovating existing
facilities; (7) air-conditioning affects learning because it is
necessary for schools to operate effectively in hot weather or use
computers; (8) the majority of schools with air-conditioning are
satisfied with its quality, although only about 50 percent of schools
have air-conditioning in classrooms; and (9) schools in central cities
or schools with a minority population of over 50 percent are more likely
than others to have insufficient technology elements and unsatisfactory
environmental conditions.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-95-95
     TITLE:  School Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or 
             Equipped for 21st Century
      DATE:  04/04/95
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             Elementary education
             Secondary education
             Minority education
             Computer networks
             Educational media centers
             Computers
             Telecommunications equipment
             Educational facilities
             Aid for education
IDENTIFIER:  National Education Goals
             New York (NY)
             Richmond (VA)
             JASON Project
             Ramona (CA)
             Montgomery County (AL)
             District of Columbia
             Chicago (IL)
             Raymond (WA)
             New Orleans (LA)
             Pomona (CA)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1995

SCHOOL FACILITIES - AMERICA'S
SCHOOLS NOT DESIGNED OR EQUIPPED
FOR 21ST CENTURY

GAO/HEHS-95-95

21st Century Schools


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CD-ROM - compact disk read-only memory
  NCES - National Center for Educational Statistics
  SASS - Schools and Staffing Survey
  SMSA - Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
  TV - television
  VCR - video cassette recorder

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-259609

April 4, 1995

The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
The Honorable Edward M.  Kennedy
The Honorable Claiborne Pell
The Honorable Paul Simon
The Honorable Paul Wellstone
United States Senate

A skilled workforce is necessary to increase productivity so that a
society can maintain and enhance its standard of living.  Therefore,
education and future employment opportunities for our nation's
children and teenagers is a concern that transcends traditional
geographic, economic, and political boundaries.  Towards that end, in
your letter of February 15, 1994, you requested information on the
physical condition of the nation's public elementary and secondary
schools.  We presented national-level information on the physical
condition of the nation's school facilities in School Facilities: 
Condition of America's Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995).  In
that report, on the basis of estimates by school officials in a
national sample of schools, we estimated that the nation's schools
need about $112 billion\1 to repair or upgrade America's multibillion
dollar investment in school facilities to good overall condition. 

In addition, you asked us to document the extent to which America's
80,000 schools are designed and equipped to meet the needs of today's
students and tomorrow's workers.  Specifically, can America's schools
provide the key facilities requirements and environmental conditions
for education reform and improvement?  Do America's schools have
appropriate technologies, such as computers, and the facility
infrastructure to support the new technologies?  In short, do
America's schools have the physical capacity to support learning into
the 21st century? 

To answer these questions, we surveyed a nationally representative
stratified random sample of about 10,000 schools and augmented the
survey with visits to 10 selected school districts.  Our analyses are
based on responses from 78 percent of the schools sampled.  Unless
otherwise noted, sampling errors do not exceed 2 percent.  (See app. 
VI for a discussion of methodology.) We conducted our study between
January 1994 and March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 Sampling error is ï¿½ 6.61 percent. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

School officials in a national sample of schools reported that
although most schools meet many key facilities requirements\2 and
environmental conditions\3 for education reform and improvement, most
are unprepared for the 21st century in critical areas: 

  Most schools do not fully use modern technology.  Although at least
     three-quarters of schools report having sufficient computers and
     televisions (TV), they do not have the system or building
     infrastructure to fully use them.  Moreover, because computers
     and other equipment are often not networked or connected to any
     other computers in the school or the outside world, they cannot
     access the information super highway. 

  Over 14 million students attend about 40 percent of schools that
     reported that their facilities cannot meet the functional
     requirements of laboratory science or large-group instruction
     even moderately well. 

  Over half the schools reported unsatisfactory flexibility of
     instructional space necessary to implement many effective
     teaching strategies. 

  Although education reform requires facilities to meet the
     functional requirements of key support services--such as private
     areas for counseling and testing, parent support activities,
     social/health care, day care and before- and after-school
     care--about two-thirds of schools reported that they cannot meet
     the functional requirements of before- or after-school care or
     day care. 

Moreover, not all students have equal access to facilities that can
support education into the 21st century, even those attending school
in the same district.  Overall, schools in central cities and schools
with a 50-percent or more minority population were more likely to
have more insufficient technology elements and a greater number of
unsatisfactory environmental conditions--particularly lighting and
physical security--than other schools. 


--------------------
\2 Small-group instruction, teacher planning, private areas for
student counseling and testing, and library/media centers. 

\3 Ventilation, heating, indoor air quality, and lighting. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2


      EDUCATION REFORM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Education reform is a national movement to raise standards for all
students at all schools.  It focuses on changes designed to improve
student outcomes by (1) determining what students should know and be
able to do and (2) ensuring that the key components of the
educational system are directed to achieving those outcomes.\4 To
accomplish these objectives, education reform efforts are introducing
new teaching methods, assessments, curricula, instructional
materials, and technology into school buildings. 

To improve instruction, reform advocates recommend that a school use
new techniques for teaching and evaluating students and involve
teachers in developing curricula, redesigning instruction, and
planning staff development.  To help achieve desired educational
outcomes, advocates also recommend that schools enlist parents to
monitor their children's progress and participate in school
activities, in part by volunteering as tutors and acting as teacher
aides.  Finally, to further ensure the success of educational reform,
advocates recommend that schools help provide health and social
services to students as well as before- and after-school care and day
care.\5

For example, when teachers evaluate students in new ways, they need
space to display and store student projects and journals.  Likewise,
changes in instructional programs or techniques--such as adopting an
ungraded primary system or creating a school-within-a-school--require
space for large-group and small-group instruction.  Adding an all-day
kindergarten, extended-day programs, or even new computer courses\6
also call for special or dedicated space.  Therefore, school
facilities that can support education reform activities and
communications technologies will not resemble or operate as schools
built in the 1950s. 

Rather than uniform-sized classrooms with rows of desks, a
chalkboard, and minimal resources such as textbooks and
encyclopedias, schools prepared to support 21st century education
would have

  flexible space, including space for small- and large-group
     instruction;

  space to store and display alternative student assessment
     materials;

  facilities for teaching laboratory science, including demonstration
     and student laboratory stations, safety equipment, and
     appropriate storage space for chemicals and other supplies; and

  a media center/library with multiple, networked computers to access
     information to outside libraries and information sources. 

In addition, such schools would also have space for a variety of
support activities:  private areas for student counseling and testing
and for parent support activities, such as tutoring, planning, making
materials, and the like; social and health care services; day care;
and before- and after-school care. 

Schools would also have the capacity to operate year round, 24-hours
per day if necessary, providing a safe and well-lit environment with
satisfactory heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, and air quality
and with appropriate acoustics for noise control.  In addition,
schools would have enough high-quality computers, printers, and
computer networks for instructional use; modems; telephone lines for
modems and telephones in instructional areas; TVs; laser disk
players/video cassette recorders (VCR); cable TV; fiber optic cable;
conduits/raceways for computer and computer network cables; electric
wiring; and power for computers and other communications
technology.\7 Networking capability in the classroom allows for use
of a wide range of teaching and learning strategies that are not
possible with stand-alone computers.  For example, networks allow

  groups of students simultaneous access to large data sources;

  students to communicate with each other and with teachers in their
     own school, and with teachers and students in other schools; and

  teachers to interact with students by computer as students
     work--engaging in online dialogs, referring to additional
     resources--or students to engage in group projects. 


--------------------
\4 See Systemwide Education Reform:  Federal Leadership Could
Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr.  30, 1993). 

\5 See School-Linked Human Services:  A Comprehensive Strategy for
Aiding Students at Risk of School Failure (GAO/HEHS-94-21, Dec.  30,
1993). 

\6 See Regulatory Flexibility in Schools:  What Happens When Schools
Are Allowed to Change the Rules?  (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr.  29, 1994)
and Education Reform:  School-Based Management Results in Changes in
Instruction and Budgeting (GAO/HEHS-94-135, Aug.  23, 1994). 

\7 Experts have identified other key components affecting the
implementation of technology in schools, such as sufficient teacher
training and computer support services.  However, because our focus
was on school facilities, these components were not included in our
survey. 


      COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN
      SCHOOLS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Although technology is changing constantly and quickly becoming
defined by complex interactive and multimedia\8

technologies and standards are only beginning to emerge,\9 it is
helpful to regard school communications technology as comprising four
basic electronic systems:  technology infrastructure, data, voice,
and video.  These systems transmit data--by computer networks,
voice--by phone lines, and video--by TV, within the school, among
different school buildings, to the outside world, and even to outer
space. 


--------------------
\8 Multimedia uses a single communication system (cable) to transmit
voice, data, and video, currently by digitizing voice and video. 

\9 See, for example, The National Information Infrastructure: 
Requirements for Education and Training, National Coordinating
Committee on Technology in Education and Training, (Alexandria, Va.: 
1994). 


         TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2.1

Of the four systems, technology infrastructure may be the most
important and least understood.  Data, voice, and video systems
cannot operate without the supporting building or system
infrastructure.  Building infrastructure consists of what needs to be
built into the facility to make any technology operate effectively in
the school:  the conduits/raceways through which computer and
computer network cables are laid in the school, the cables and
electrical wiring for computers and other communications technology,
and the electrical power and related building features such as
electric outlets.  Although designing a new building with this
infrastructure included is relatively easy and inexpensive,
installing it in existing school buildings can be expensive and
disruptive. 

The other type of infrastructure--system infrastructure--links up
various technology components.  For example, computer network
infrastructure consists of the software that runs the networking
function.  It links all computers in a class or in the school or the
computers in the school with computers in the outside world--as well
as special pieces of hardware such as servers (computers with large
information storage capabilities that allow many users to share
information) whose purpose is to run the network.  Besides the
network infrastructure, modems--small electrical devices that allow
computers to communicate with each other through the phone lines--are
another basic component of systems infrastructure that links data,
voice, video, and even multimedia systems. 

This technology infrastructure, although initially more costly than
the basic computer/printer, may have substantially more value. 
Educationally, it can link even the most remote or poor school with
vast resources, including the finest libraries and the best teachers,
for a wide range of courses or course enhancements, such as "virtual"
field trips.  Financially, according to the North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, the Internet and the emerging video and
imaging technologies could be used to change the economic basis of
schooling by drawing upon the free or low-cost resources and services
to replace textbooks and other costly instructional materials,
software, and other programs.  Those funds could then be used for
additional staffing, local curriculum development, developing
technology staff, ongoing local staff development, and the like.\10


--------------------
\10 Beau Fly Jones et al., Learning, Technology and Policy for
Educational Reform, July 1994, Version 1.0, North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (Oak Brook, Ill.:  1994). 


         DATA SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2.2

Basic data systems include computers, some with compact disk
read-only memory (CD-ROM) capability, connected to printers.  A
baseline data system enables instructional computers to communicate
with similar devices in the classroom or the school (local area
networks).  Optimally, a data system also includes computer networks
compatible with outside resources (wide area networks) such as the
Internet;\11 computers in the central office, in other schools, and
home computers; and databases from the Department of Education or
Library of Congress. 


--------------------
\11 The Internet, a global communications network, is a cooperative
effort among educational institutions, government agencies, and
various commercial and nonprofit organizations.  Historically, the
Internet has contained mostly scientific research and education
information.  However, more recently, the kind of information
accessible on the Internet has expanded to include library catalogs,
full texts of electronic books and journals, government information,
campuswide information systems, picture archives, and business data
and resources.  The Internet allows three primary functions: 
electronic mail and discussion groups (e mail), use of remote
computers (telnet), and transferring files (file transfer protocol). 


         VOICE SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2.3

Voice systems include accessible two-way voice communication and
messaging (telephone) systems for staff members to communicate with
each other in the building and with the school community.  A baseline
system includes a public address system, some outgoing lines and
telephones serving school offices and staff members, and incoming
lines to meet community and administrative needs.  Optimally, it also
includes more outgoing and incoming lines and sufficient capacity to
allow for such developing technologies as voice processing and voice
mail. 


         VIDEO SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2.4

Video systems provide accessibility to television communication and
all forms of video transmission from school locations as well as from
the outside.  A baseline system includes capability to receive
instructional and teacher professional programming as well as
commercial and public television stations whether through a master
antenna or cable, microwave, or satellite.  An optimal system with
today's technology also includes capability in classrooms and
teachers' offices to dial up video sources in the school media center
and to conduct two-way video-interactive classes between classrooms,
inside the school, and between schools. 


      ONLY A FEW SCHOOLS HAVE
      STATE-OF-THE-ART
      COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

Today, new schools are being designed with these changes in mind. 
Yet we only have a handful of schools--mainly science high schools
like Stuyvesant High School in New York City or Thomas Jefferson High
School in Virginia--that model state-of-the-art communications
technologies.  However, to prepare the nation's children and
teenagers to be competitive workers in the 21st century, experts and
business leaders say modern communication technologies should be part
of America's elementary and secondary education, not just the sole
province of a few schools. 

An example of state-of-the-art technology can be found in the new
Stuyvesant High School.  Serving about 3,000 students, it has over
400 computers, most of which are arranged in 15 networks, with access
to the Internet, as well as four antennae on the roof to communicate
with satellites and virtually anyone else in the outside world.  This
school can directly access the latest information from the most
sophisticated scientific satellites and participate in interactive
"classes" with scientists in the field in the Amazon rain forest via
interactive, multimedia networks like the JASON Project.  This allows
the students to talk with these scientists and observe them and the
rain forest on their TV screens during class, allowing them to go on
"virtual" field trips worldwide. 


      FEDERAL LEGISLATION SUPPORTS
      REFORM AND TECHNOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.4

Recent federal legislative initiatives supporting education reform
and technology include (1) Improving America's Schools Act of 1994,
which authorized $200 million for technology education for 1995 and
an additional $200 million for the new education infrastructure
improvement grants; and (2) Goals 2000:  Educate America Act, passed
in 1994, which establishes an Office of Educational Technology in the
Department of Education.  Goals 2000 requires states that wish to
receive funding under the statute to develop a state improvement plan
for elementary and secondary education.  This plan should include a
systemic statewide plan to increase the use of state-of-the-art
technologies that enhance elementary and secondary student learning
and staff development to support the National Education Goals and
state content standards and state student performance standards. 
Central to both these acts is the idea that children are entitled to
an opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in these
standards, often referred to as "opportunity to learn."\12

Figure 1 depicts various school facilities around the country. 

   Figure 1:  Opportunity to
   Learn?

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\12 "Opportunity to learn" refers to the sufficiency or quality of
the resources, practices, and conditions necessary to provide all
students with an opportunity to learn the material in voluntary
national content standards or state content standards.  See, for
example, Andrew Porter, "The Uses and Misuses of Opportunity-to-Learn
Standards," Educational Researcher, Vol.  24, No.  1 (1995), pp. 
21-27; and Faith E.  Crampton and Terry N.  Whitney, "Equity and
Funding of School Facilities:  Are States at Risk?" State Legislative
Report, Vol.  20, No.  1 (1995), pp.  1-8. 


   MOST SCHOOLS HAVE COMPUTERS AND
   TVS BUT LITTLE INFRASTRUCTURE
   TO FULLY USE TECHNOLOGIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Over three-quarters of the schools reported having sufficient
computers and TVs.  Two-thirds reported having sufficient printers,
laser disk players/VCRs,\13 and cable TV.  However, school officials
reported that about 10.3 million students in about 25 percent of the
schools do not have sufficient computers.  Although most schools
report having enough computers and other basic technology
elements,\14 they do not have the technology infrastructure to fully
use them.  (See fig.  2 and table 1.)

   Figure 2:  Most Schools Report
   Sufficient Computers and
   Televisions but Lack of
   Infrastructure to Fully Use
   Technology

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                                         Table 1
                         
                           Millions of Students Attend Schools
                           Reporting Insufficient Capability to
                                    Support Technology

                                                                                Number of
                                          Percent of         Number of  students affected
Technology element                           schools           schools      (in millions)
----------------------------------  ----------------  ----------------  -----------------
Fiber optics cable                              86.8            66,000               35.4
Phone lines for instructional use               61.2            47,000               24.8
Conduits/raceways for computer/                 60.6            46,600               24.9
 computer network cables
Modems                                          57.5            44,200               23.0
Phone lines for modems                          55.5            42,700               22.5
Computer networks for                           51.8            40,100               20.7
 instructional use
Electrical wiring for computers/                46.1            35,700               19.3
 communications technology
Electrical power for computers/                 34.6            26,800               14.5
 communications technology
Laser disk player/VCR                           33.5            25,700               13.5
Cable TV                                        31.7            24,200               12.2
Computer printers for                           29.3            22,700               11.9
 instructional use
Computers for instructional use                 25.2            19,500               10.3
TVs                                             15.9            12,200                6.8
Schools reporting six or more                   51.9            40,400               21.3
 insufficient technology elements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in schools reporting enough computers, over one-third reported
insufficient electrical wiring for computers/communications
technology.  Computers and other equipment that are not networked or
capable of communicating with anything else in the school or in the
outside world may be sufficient for basic or reinforcement
activities.  They are limited, however, in their access to the vast
amount of electronic information available and do not allow for new
information to come into the system or for the interaction between
students, students and teachers, or the school and the outside world. 

Over half of America's schools reported insufficient capability in
modems, phone lines for modems, phone lines for instruction,
conduits/raceways, and fiber optics.  (See table 1 and, for more
detail, tables III.1 and III.2 in app.  III.)

The following details emerged from the survey: 

  In central cities, over 60 percent of schools reported insufficient
     networks, modems, phone lines (for modems or instruction),
     conduits, and fiber optic cables.  Over half reported
     insufficient capability for electrical wiring for computer
     technology.  (For more detail, see table III.4 in app.  III.)

  Regional analyses show that schools in the West reported the least
     sufficient technology.  (For more detail, see table III.7 in
     app.  III.)

  Schools with inadequate buildings\15 also were more likely to
     report insufficient capability to support technology.  In every
     area of communications technology we asked about, schools with
     no inadequate buildings reported greater sufficiency than
     schools with one or more inadequate buildings.  However, even in
     schools reporting no inadequate buildings, about one-half or
     more reported insufficient capability in areas related to
     interconnectivity, such as networks, modems, and fiber optics. 

Site visits supported the survey results: 

  In Ramona, California, we learned that some schools needed to
     retrofit wiring to increase power for more demanding
     technologies; one elementary school had only two outlets in each
     classroom.  Moreover, if four teachers used their outlets at the
     same time, the circuit breakers tripped.  This happened about
     once a month. 

  A school official in Montgomery County, Alabama, said that new
     electrical systems to accommodate computers and other
     technologies were the most common renovation needed in schools. 

  In our site visit to Washington, D.C., officials told us that while
     many schools have computer laboratories with new computer
     equipment, these will need upgraded electrical systems,
     lighting, and air-conditioning to provide an adequate learning
     environment. 

  In one school we visited in Chicago, computers were still in boxes
     because the school did not have sufficient power and outlets to
     use them. 

In looking at the uses of bond proceeds in the districts, on average,
school officials reported that only 8 percent of the most recently
passed bond was spent for purchase of computers and
telecommunications equipment.  That is, for the average $6.5 million
bond issue, about $155,600 or 2 percent was provided for the purchase
of computers and about $381,100 or 6 percent for the purchase of
telecommunications equipment.  (See app.  II.)


--------------------
\13 Laser disk players and VCRs were rated as one item.  It could be
that a sufficient number of VCRs exists but not laser disk players. 

\14 The self-reports of sufficiency may be overly optimistic for
several reasons.  First, in our analyses we included as "sufficient"
responses that indicated moderate and somewhat sufficient capability
as well as very sufficient capability.  This could indicate a wide
range of sufficiency, including some responses that are very close to
"not sufficient." Second, our analysis of responses showed that
without any objective standards with which to anchor their responses,
schools indicating "sufficient" computers had computer/student ratios
ranging from 1:1 to 1:292 (a median of 1:11) for those schools that
had computers.  About 300 schools that indicated they had no
computers said that was sufficient.  (For more detail, see table
III.9 in app.  III.) Finally, technology experts who regularly
consult with school systems report that the level of knowledge among
school administrators and staff of possible use and application of
technology in schools is low--further increasing the likelihood that
these sufficiency estimates are overly optimistic. 

\15 We asked respondents to rate the overall condition of their
school buildings on a six-point scale:  excellent, good, adequate,
fair, poor, or replace.  See School Facilities:  Condition of
America's Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995). 


      SELECTED RESPONDENT COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

     "Our building, built in 1948, was wired for a filmstrip
     projector."

     "We live in a state where we put more technology and safety in
     an automobile than we do in our schools."

     "We are not ready to join the information network proposed by
     Vice President Gore."

     "Our computers are mostly donated.  What few we purchased were
     bought in 1984--the kids laugh at them, they have better at
     home."

     "The number of computers in the buildings is limited, and we
     currently have one computer bus serving all six elementary
     schools.  The time for students to spend on the computers is
     obviously limited."

     "Facility adaptation for computer networks, video networks, and
     phone access is expensive and makes justifying purchase of
     computer hardware more difficult."


   SCHOOLS REPORTED LACKING KEY
   FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR
   EDUCATION REFORM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

When asked how well their buildings meet the functional requirements
of specified activities related to school reform and improvement,
many survey respondents reported that they met these requirements
"not well at all." (See table 2.) For example, although 58 percent of
schools reported meeting the functional requirements of laboratory
science at least somewhat well, in fact, about 14.6 million students
are in the 42 percent of schools where officials report that the
facilities requirements for laboratory science are met not well at
all (see fig.  3 and table 2). 



                          Table 2
          
            Millions of Students Attend Schools
             Reporting They Meet the Functional
             Requirements of Some Key Education
             Reform Activities Not Well at All

                                                 Number of
                                                  students
                  Percent of   Number of      affected (in
Activity             schools     schools         millions)
----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------------
Instructional activities
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory              42.0      32,100              14.6
 science
Large-group             38.2      29,500              14.3
 instruction
Storage of              31.3      24,000              12.9
 student
 assessment
 materials
Display student         27.6      21,200              11.1
 assessment
 materials
Library/media           13.4      10,400               4.2
 center
Small-group              9.5       7,300               3.7
 instruction

Support activities
----------------------------------------------------------
Day care                77.5      55,900              29.0
Before/after            58.8      43,100              22.4
 school care
Social/health           27.0      20,900              10.5
 care services
Private areas           25.7      19,900              10.1
 for counseling
 and testing
Parent support          23.5      18,200               9.7
 activities
Teacher planning        13.1      10,200               5.1
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Survey respondents rated the ability of their school
facilities to meet the functional requirements of key education
reform activities on the following scale:  very well, moderately
well, somewhat well, and not well at all. 

   Figure 3:  Schools Meet
   Functional Requirements of Some
   Key Education Reform Activities
   at Least Somewhat Well

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Survey respondents rated the ability of their school
facilities to meet the functional requirements of key education
reform activities on the following scale:  very well, moderately
well, somewhat well, and not well at all. 

Only seven states--District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas--had 20 percent or more
of their schools meeting at least somewhat well the functional
requirements for some educational reform and improvement activities. 
While 40 states reported that 50 percent or more of their schools had
three or more specified requirements that they met not well at all, 5
states--Arkansas, California, Maine, Ohio, and Rhode Island--reported
70 percent or more of their schools in this condition.  (For more
detail, see tables IV.1 and IV.2 in app.  IV.)

Nationwide, 42 percent of schools reported that their buildings met
the functional requirements of laboratory science not well at all,
affecting 14.6 million students.  Forty-three states reported that
one-third or more of their schools met functional requirements for
laboratory science not well at all.  Eight states--Alaska,
California, Delaware, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and
Washington--reported that 50 percent or more of their schools were in
this condition.  (For more detail, see table IV.3 in app.  IV.)

Nearly four out of five schools nationwide reported that they could
not meet at all well the functional requirements of day care.  (See
fig.  3.) Forty-five states reported that two-thirds or more of their
schools were in this condition.  (For more detail, see table IV.3 in
app.  IV.)

Nationwide, about three out of five schools reported that they met
the functional requirements of before- and after-school care not well
at all.  Forty-eight states reported that one-third or more of their
schools were in this condition. 

About two out of five schools nationwide reported that they met the
functional requirements of large-group instruction not well at all, a
condition affecting 14.3 million students.  Thirty states reported
that one-third or more of their schools were in this condition.  Four
states--Alaska, California, Kansas, and Nebraska--reported over half
their schools in this condition.  (For more detail, see table IV.1 in
app.  IV.)

These problems were also demonstrated on our site visits: 

  Officials in Chicago told us that only one-fourth of Chicago's
     schools have properly equipped science laboratories, with water,
     power, gas, vacuum, and appropriate mechanisms for air and waste
     removal. 

  At the high school in Raymond, Washington, officials said that they
     need flexible space for large- and small-group instruction. 
     Science classes have outdated equipment, and reading areas in
     the media center are noisy and poorly lighted.  Officials also
     say they desperately need a day care center to keep young women
     with babies in school. 

  In New Orleans, officials told us that most secondary schools lack
     science laboratories that meet current safety needs, such as
     adequate air circulation, ventilation, emergency shut-offs for
     gas and electricity, emergency eye washes, and showers. 


      SELECTED RESPONDENT COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

     "These schools, as others over thirty years of age, while
     well-maintained, cannot provide the type and variety of
     instructional space necessary for the education programs of the
     21st century without major renovations."

     "The buildings were built for twenty-five students per class
     with no extra rooms, no small and/or large group areas, and no
     planned storage space.  Consequently, the facilities are
     certainly not conducive to new or different class size
     configurations or lesson delivery formats."


   MOST SCHOOLS REPORT MOST
   ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
   SATISFACTORY, BUT PROBLEMS
   REMAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Overall, most school officials reported satisfaction with most
environmental factors associated with learning.\16 (See table 3.)
However, 22 million students are in 53.9 percent of the schools that
reported that their instructional space flexibility was
unsatisfactory.  Rates of unsatisfactory environmental conditions
tend to be higher in schools where over 40 percent of the students
are approved to receive free or reduced lunch, where over 50 percent
of the students are minority students, in schools in the West.  (See
app.  V.)



                          Table 3
          
            Millions of Students Attend Schools
           Reporting Unsatisfactory Environmental
                         Conditions

                                                 Number of
                       Percent    Number          students
                            of        of      affected (in
Environmental factor   schools   schools         millions)
--------------------  --------  --------  ----------------
Acoustics for noise       28.1    21,900              11.0
 control
Ventilation               27.1    21,100              11.6
Physical security of      24.2    18,900              10.6
 buildings
Heating                   19.2    15,000               7.9
Indoor air quality        19.2    15,000               8.4
Lighting                  15.6    12,200               6.7
----------------------------------------------------------
Air-conditioning is no longer a luxury for schools if they want to
effectively operate in hot weather or use computers.  Moreover, in
recent years, researchers have pointed to a relationship--although
inconclusive--between certain environmental conditions and student
learning.\17 In particular, air-conditioning has been cited as
affecting learning.  Of those schools noting that they had air-
conditioning, 15.4 percent (6,000 schools) reported unsatisfactory
air-conditioning, affecting about 4.2 million students. 

The majority of schools reported that they were satisfied with their
air-conditioning, although only half of the schools responding to our
survey reported that they had air-conditioning in classrooms.  The
geographic patterns of air-conditioning in classrooms generally
follow climate patterns.  (For more detail, see fig.  V.1 in app. 
V.) Three-quarters of schools reported that they had air-conditioning
in their administrative areas.  Only three states--New York, Oregon,
and Rhode Island--indicated that over a third of their schools had
unsatisfactory air-conditioning in their classrooms. 

We found examples of problems caused by unsatisfactory
air-conditioning in our site visits.  In New Orleans, nearly half of
the schools have no air-conditioning, despite the average relative
humidity in the morning of 87 percent.  Faced with a similar
situation in Richmond, Virginia, school officials told us that
students with asthma get sick from the heat; schools close early in
the hot fall and spring months, decreasing instructional time. 


--------------------
\16 Environmental factors associated with learning include heating,
lighting, air-conditioning, acoustics, space flexibility, and
physical security. 

\17 See, for example, J.  Howard Bowers et al., "Effects of the
Physical Environment of Schools on Students," (paper presented to
65th Council of Educational Facility Planners, International
Conference, 1988) and Carol S.  Cash, "Building Condition and Student
Achievement and Behavior," doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993. 


      SELECTED RESPONDENT COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

     "Our school district facilities are currently meeting the needs
     of our students.  We have not been impacted by population
     growth, lawsuits, or other major problems that would force our
     resources in other areas.  Due to conservative spending
     practices by our school board and adequate funding by the state
     of Wyoming in the past decade, we have adequate carryover to
     provide needs without asking for state assistance or a bond
     issue."

     "Building design in the 1950s and 60s did not include air-
     conditioning or even windows that opened for schools, thus much
     renovation is needed in our district."

     "The middle school is depressing when you walk into it.  We are
     having to use gym dressing rooms as regular classrooms."

     "The appearance and condition of school buildings is an
     important factor in positively influencing urban students.  The
     continued neglect of the public school infrastructure at both
     state and federal levels continues to subject our students and
     staff to conditions which do not ensure their welfare and
     safety."


   BEST AND WORST SCHOOLS
   SOMETIMES FOUND IN SAME
   DISTRICT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Although some children have access to facilities that can support
education in the 21st century, many do not.  Schools differ
dramatically, even in the same district.  Our site visits revealed
that the ability of school facilities to support education reform
ranges widely.  Because of the need to ease overcrowding in some
areas, schools are constantly being built, even in impoverished
cities.  These new schools are generally equipped to implement
education reform and improvement activities.  However, with
construction of new facilities taking priority over maintaining and
renovating current buildings, gross inequalities may result in the
same school district.  For example, in Pomona, California, officials
told us that to be ready for education in the 21st century, Pomona's
older schools need additional wiring and outlets to use new
technology and facilities for large-group instruction, storage of
student assessment materials, social and health services, teachers'
planning areas, and the like.  In contrast, the newest school has a
satellite dish, an electrical system built to handle anticipated
technology, collapsible walls that facilitate team teaching or
small-group instruction, enormous amounts of storage space, and large
amounts of space for a variety of services and activities. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Many education reformers say that holding students to nationwide
standards is unfair if they have not had an equal--or roughly
equal--opportunity to learn.  If schools cannot provide students with
sufficient technological support or facilities for instruction and
services, they may not be providing even a roughly equal opportunity
for all students to learn.  This is particularly true in central
cities and in schools that serve high percentages of minority and
poor students. 

Far from the high-tech world of interactive media and virtual
reality, many of our schools are wired for no more than filmstrip
projectors.  As one respondent commented,

     "We need technology in the schools and teachers who can use the
     equipment.  The percentage of teachers who can use computers is
     abysmally low, yet computers only scratch the surface of
     technology that should be available to all students, not just
     those who live in affluent areas.  Interactive TV and
     telecommunications is a must in all schools, yet the cost of
     this technology remains prohibitively high for most small
     schools.  For those schools who can afford it, the cost of
     training teachers to use it drives the costs up further."

In short, most of America's schools do not yet have key technologies
or the facilities required to support learning into the 21st century. 
They cannot provide key facilities requirements and environmental
conditions for education reform and improvement.  In particular,
older, unrenovated schools need infrastructure renovation to support
technology.  These renovations include fundamental changes to
building structure, wiring and electrical capacity, air-conditioning
and ventilation, and security. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We spoke with officials at the Department of Education who reviewed a
draft of our report and incorporated their comments as appropriate. 
We did not ask for formal agency comments since this report does not
review any department programs. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate
committees and other interested parties.  Please call Eleanor L. 
Johnson on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. 
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. 

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


PROJECT ADVISERS
=========================================================== Appendix I

The following individuals advised this report either by (a) serving
on our expert panel on January 31, 1994; (b) helping with the
development of our questionnaire; or (c) reviewing a draft report. 

Allen C.  Abend\a,b,c
Chief
School Facilities Branch
Maryland State Department of Education

Phillip T.  Chen\b
Construction Technician
Division of Construction
Department of Facilities Management
Board of Education of Montgomery County (Maryland)

Greg Coleman\a,b
Capital Asset Management Administrator
Office of Infrastructure Support Services
U.S.  Department of Energy

Laurel Cornish\a
Director of Facilities
U.S.  Department of Education
Impact Aid
School Facilities Branch

(Mr.) Vivian A.  D'Souza\b
Acting Director
Division of Maintenance
Department of Facilities Management
Board of Education of Montgomery County (Maryland)

Kenneth J.  Ducote\b,c
Director
Department of Facility Planning
New Orleans Public Schools

Robert Feild\a
Director
Committee on Architecture for Education
American Institute of Architects

William Fowler\a,b,c
Education Statistician
U.S.  Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics

Lawrence Friedman\b,c
Associate Director
Regional Policy Information Center
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

Thomas E.  Glass\b
Professor
Department of Leadership and Educational Policy Studies
Northern Illinois University

Terence C.  Golden\a
Chairman
Bailey Realty

Thomas Grooms\a
Program Manager
Federal Design Office
National Endowment for the Arts

Shirley J.  Hansen\a
President
Hansen Associates

Alton C.  Hlavin\b
Assistant Superintendent for Facilities Services
Fairfax County Public Schools
Fairfax County, Virginia

Bruce Hunter\b
Executive Director
American Association of School Administrators

Daniel Kasprzyk\b
Education Statistician
U.S.  Department of Education
National Center for Educational Statistics

Steven F.  Kaufman\b
Education Statistician
U.S.  Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics

Eddie L.  King\b
Auditor
Inspector General
U.S.  Department of Education

Andrew Lemer\a
President
Matrix Group, Inc. 

William H.  McAfee III\b
Facilities Manager
Division of Facilities Management
District of Columbia Public Schools

Roger Scott\b,c
Program Director
Southwest Regional Laboratory

Richard L.  Siegel\a
(Former) Director of Facilities Services
Smithsonian Institution

Linda Tsantis\c
Executive Vice President
America Tomorrow, Inc. 

Lisa J.  Walker\a
Executive Director
Education Writers Association

Tony J.  Wall\b,c
Executive Director/CEO
The Council of Educational Facilities Planners International

William M.  Wilder\b
Director
Department of Facilities Management
Board of Education of Montgomery County (Maryland)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
RELEVANT SURVEY ITEMS WITH OVERALL
PERCENT RESPONSE
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


DATA--TECHNOLOGY ELEMENTS
========================================================= Appendix III



                         Table III.1
           
           Majority of States Report That at Least
            50 Percent of Schools Have Six or More
               Insufficient Technology Elements

Percent of schools with six
or more insufficient
technology factors             States
-----------------------------  -----------------------------
20-29                          Nevada, South Dakota

30-39                          Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky,
                               Minnesota, North Dakota,
                               Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming

40-49                          Arizona, Colorado, Georgia,
                               Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi,
                               Montana, Nebraska, New
                               Jersey, West Virginia,
                               Wisconsin

50-59                          Alaska, Connecticut, District
                               of Columbia, Florida,
                               Louisiana, Maryland,
                               Missouri, New York, Oklahoma,
                               South Carolina, Tennessee,
                               Utah, Vermont, Virginia

60-69                          Alabama, California, Idaho,
                               Illinois, Massachusetts,
                               Maine, Michigan, North
                               Carolina, New Hampshire,
                               Oregon, Rhode Island,
                               Washington

70-79                          Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico,
                               Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 7.1-13.5 percent. 



                                     Table III.2
                       
                             Percent of Schools Reporting
                       Insufficient Technology Elements--Data,
                       Voice, Systems Infrastructure--by State

                                                                          Phone lines
                    Comput  Printe  Networ                Phone lines   instructional
State                  ers      rs      ks  Modems         for modems            area
------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----------------  --------------
Alabama               32.1    36.3    58.6    61.7               55.4            64.1
Alaska                35.5    36.2    56.4    56.9               53.8            60.9
Arizona               15.8    18.3    46.4    60.8               58.1            61.8
Arkansas               9.5    17.5    36.7    63.7               56.4            59.3
California            37.1    39.7    69.8    70.5               68.1            64.8
Colorado            20.9\a  23.9\a  37.0\a    61.6               56.8            45.3
Connecticut         26.5\a  29.9\a  63.6\a  55.4\a             51.9\a          52.7\a
Delaware            44.5\b  52.7\b  65.7\b  83.0\a             82.9\a          82.4\a
District of         22.0\a  31.4\a  37.1\a  49.5\b             52.7\b          52.6\b
 Columbia
Florida               28.6    28.9    66.4    65.0               63.2            62.3
Georgia               11.6    13.7    33.9    48.0               53.0            71.7
Hawaii                39.0  44.7\a    72.0    75.7               79.5            74.7
Idaho                 25.3    31.6    55.9    63.9               58.8            72.1
Illinois              30.2    39.0    57.7    65.7               63.4            64.2
Indiana               16.5    18.3    42.1    50.7               55.0            58.2
Iowa                  15.3    16.5    43.5    48.5               43.8            55.4
Kansas                22.9    27.7    44.0    47.3               44.4            61.7
Kentucky              13.1    19.8    35.5    57.2               55.7            67.2
Louisiana             31.6    38.6    62.5    59.5               65.5            78.7
Maine               31.0\a  31.8\a  62.9\a  69.6\a             63.8\a          69.4\a
Maryland              29.1    30.4    44.1    62.3               66.7            87.0
Massachusetts       \32.5\  43.1\a    70.4    71.1               66.9            71.9
                         a
Michigan              36.9    38.8    63.3    64.1               58.1            63.4
Minnesota             22.5    21.7    41.5    42.7               41.0            41.4
Mississippi           16.9    20.3    37.6    53.8               55.8            62.7
Missouri              23.3    32.8    52.4    60.5               59.1            65.4
Montana               17.1    19.0    47.5    46.8               37.5            53.2
Nebraska              11.2    10.1  43.3\a  55.5\a             45.7\a          44.4\a
Nevada                14.4    15.9    26.9    28.2               26.2            27.1
New Hampshire       44.0\a  42.9\a  65.6\a    68.4             58.6\a          66.4\a
New Jersey            20.0    24.5  41.8\a  38.1\a               33.5            62.9
New Mexico            36.3    44.9    69.6    79.0               58.5            57.3
New York              20.2    24.2    44.0    48.9               55.3            57.9
North Carolina        30.1    33.3    51.1    62.2               62.6            73.8
North Dakota          17.3    19.8    36.7    40.2               36.5            46.9
Ohio                  38.2    50.7    71.8    74.0               70.5            76.2
Oklahoma              22.9    33.0    50.8    63.4               57.7            60.0
Oregon                38.2    41.8    66.2    59.8               65.1            65.6
Pennsylvania          18.2    19.4  50.2\a  54.7\a             44.2\a          48.7\a
Rhode Island        37.1\a  42.7\a  49.3\a  67.3\a             52.1\a            67.3
South Carolina        33.0    35.1    56.1    55.2               50.3            61.5
South Dakota           9.8     9.9    37.0    37.0               35.4            42.0
Tennessee             20.4    22.8    48.0    62.7               65.6            68.6
Texas                 12.8    15.6    31.3    38.9               38.4            44.0
Utah                   6.9     7.9    28.7    54.4               71.0            77.5
Vermont             32.7\b  31.7\b  65.7\a  55.9\b             61.4\b          56.1\b
Virginia              31.3    37.7    56.5    54.1               52.9            56.0
Washington            32.0    39.8    60.5    61.8               61.1            66.3
West Virginia         16.5    17.2    32.3    56.8               51.5            71.8
Wisconsin             22.4    24.5    44.6    45.4               46.4            58.9
Wyoming                9.8    13.2    32.7  41.4\a               33.8            44.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                                   Table III. 3
                     
                           Percent of Schools Reporting
                     Insufficient Technology Elements--Video
                      and Building Infrastructure--by State

                    Televi    Laser disk   Cable  Condui
State                 sion    player/VCR      TV      ts   Cable  Wiring   Power
------------------  ------  ------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama               15.0          34.6    33.3    61.9    74.8    44.1    33.9
Alaska                35.3          46.3    55.6    67.4    90.9    52.1    44.7
Arizona               16.8          23.1    30.4    56.0    83.5    36.3    27.6
Arkansas               6.6          21.6    12.6    43.1    85.1    34.1    19.8
California            21.0          41.2    49.9    79.7    92.8    69.1    55.6
Colorado              16.9        29.7\a    28.8  49.7\a    88.2  38.5\a  32.7\a
Connecticut           25.1        35.0\a  42.4\a  62.9\a    91.3  55.1\a  41.2\a
Delaware            32.8\b        60.9\b  45.4\b  76.9\a    93.3  69.5\b  48.8\b
District of         21.6\a        31.4\a  25.6\a  50.0\b  58.0\b  45.8\b  41.4\b
 Columbia
Florida                8.6          28.9    19.7    67.6    88.0    64.3    41.9
Georgia               14.8          28.8    12.9    57.8    87.1    44.0    38.3
Hawaii                 4.7          29.8    18.8    82.1    89.7    75.1    61.4
Idaho                 23.0          44.5    42.7    72.3    91.0    51.2    36.8
Illinois              23.3          43.7    43.4    68.8    87.0    52.6    41.1
Indiana               12.9          24.0    27.1    52.3    82.9    43.1    32.0
Iowa                   4.5          21.0    13.2    49.9    84.9    31.3    15.4
Kansas                17.9          34.9    31.2    57.3    89.0    40.7    33.6
Kentucky               3.2          23.2     8.0    49.8    75.2    35.8    25.1
Louisiana             18.4          40.4    42.7    61.6    87.7    47.2    38.6
Maine                 19.7        43.7\a  46.2\a    72.6    94.0  46.7\a  35.0\a
Maryland              36.2          52.1    38.5    61.9    91.8    46.8    36.0
Massachusetts       34.9\a        48.0\a  44.2\a    73.9    88.1    60.8  49.4\a
Michigan              27.1          42.1    27.1    68.7    85.6    51.0    38.3
Minnesota             17.3          31.6    27.4    48.9    72.3     7.4    25.2
Mississippi            4.9          36.7    32.5    55.6    85.0    26.6    19.9
Missouri               6.6          26.0    17.3    53.2    87.9    33.7    26.0
Montana               14.6          25.4    42.0    62.1    81.7    38.8    24.9
Nebraska               1.7          12.5  31.0\a    62.4    83.3    33.1    21.2
Nevada                 4.1          13.9    14.8    43.6    78.2    28.4    25.1
New Hampshire       27.4\a        43.7\a  26.8\a    69.4    88.8  57.7\a  35.8\a
New Jersey            11.2          24.9    32.5  55.2\a    85.8  41.2\a    34.2
New Mexico            15.4          54.8    51.6    77.3    87.1    48.5    42.1
New York              24.7          38.1    35.9    55.5    82.3    50.7    34.7
North Carolina        15.2          30.9    24.5    66.0    92.3    55.4    41.8
North Dakota          15.1          30.9    27.5    56.0    69.5    33.8    17.7
Ohio                  16.0          44.1    31.3    76.6    95.0    63.0    50.6
Oklahoma              18.8          35.2    32.8    54.6    81.7    41.4    32.3
Oregon                29.9          35.6    23.3    68.0    87.6    56.0    33.7
Pennsylvania          13.9        34.7\a    27.4  41.0\a    86.6    32.2    17.4
Rhode Island          24.4        41.0\a    17.3    74.0    90.8  64.2\a  45.0\a
South Carolina         5.6          25.3    29.8    62.9    87.1    41.1    33.2
South Dakota           7.8          22.4    13.6    43.3    69.7    22.9    14.6
Tennessee              6.9          37.1    27.1    58.0    94.3    38.8    25.4
Texas                  8.7          17.0    31.6    46.0    83.0    28.6    22.3
Utah                   4.8          22.1    39.4    55.3    93.3    38.8    26.7
Vermont               10.0        38.1\b  57.8\b  69.3\a    95.6  48.5\b  26.2\b
Virginia               4.1          36.7    18.4    57.5    93.5    36.1    29.5
Washington            15.0          41.2    34.9    61.0    86.3    47.0    35.1
West Virginia          4.2          30.8    14.4    49.9    93.2    36.2    18.0
Wisconsin             11.3          24.2    20.5    52.5    86.3    36.5    33.4
Wyoming               11.6          21.2  40.1\b  50.9\b    83.6    29.6    15.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                         Table III.4
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
             Insufficient Technology Elements by
                        Community Type

                                               Urban
                                              fringe
                                                   /  Rural/
                                      Centra   large   small
Technology element                    l city    town    town
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Fiber optic cable                       90.2    87.8    84.4
Conduits                                66.9    61.9    55.6
Phone lines in instructional areas      66.8    60.6    57.8
Modems                                  65.0    55.9    53.5
Networks                                60.9    50.6    46.5
Phone lines for modems                  61.3    55.3    51.8
Electrical wiring for communications    54.8    46.7    40.1
 technology
Electric power for communications       42.9    36.9    27.8
 technology
Laser disk player/VCRs                  38.7    32.2    30.9
Printers                                38.1    26.7    25.2
Cable TV                                33.0    32.8    30.0
Computers                               31.7    24.5    21.2
TVs                                     18.6    17.1    13.3
Six or more unsatisfactory              60.0    52.0    46.5
 technology elements
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.7-3.5 percent. 



                         Table III.5
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
             Insufficient Technology Elements by
                       Level of School

                                      Elemen  Second  Combin
Technology element                      tary     ary      ed
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Fiber optic cable                       88.3    82.9    84.7
Conduits                                63.3    53.1    60.6
Phone lines in instructional areas      64.4    53.2    52.8
Modems                                  60.9    48.4    54.1
Networks                                54.8    42.9    53.6
Phone lines for modems                  58.4    47.8    52.3
Electrical wiring for communications    48.7    39.2    42.9
 technology
Electric power for communications       36.7    29.1    30.5
 technology
Laser disk player/VCRs                  34.9    30.1    29.7
Printers                                31.7    23.2    25.9
Cable TV                                33.7    24.3    42.7
Computers                               27.0    20.3    22.2
TVs                                     17.3    11.9    14.8
Six or more unsatisfactory              55.7    41.5    50.9
 technology elements
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.4-4.0 percent. 



                        Table III.6
          
                Percent of Schools Reporting
            Insufficient Technology Elements by
              Proportion of Minority Students


                                       5.5  20.5      More
                                Less    to    to      than
Technology element          than 5.5  20.4  50.4      50.5
--------------------------  --------  ----  ----  --------
Fiber optic cable               85.6  86.2  88.2      88.3
Conduits                        59.3  56.2  65.5      62.9
Phone lines in                  60.7  59.4  60.6      64.9
 instructional areas
Modems                          55.9  52.7  59.9      63.1
Networks                        48.9  49.6  56.2      55.0
Phone lines for modems          54.0  51.2  58.7      59.9
Electrical wiring for           42.3  44.7  46.9      53.5
 communications technology
Electric power for              30.3  30.5  36.3      44.8
 communications technology
Laser disk player/VCRs          31.3  29.1  37.6      38.4
Printers                        27.1  28.5  30.3      33.4
Cable TV                        28.2  25.7  33.9      41.4
Computers                       23.5  24.9  25.6      28.0
TVs                             13.1  15.4  14.7      22.3
Six or more unsatisfactory      48.7  50.0  54.4      57.4
 technology elements
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.8-4.0 percent. 



                         Table III.7
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
             Insufficient Technology Elements by
                      Geographic Region

                              Northe  Midwes
Technology element               ast       t   South    West
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Fiber optic cable               86.5    85.7    86.1    89.4
Conduits                        57.2    61.5    56.0    69.0
Phone lines in instructional    59.2    60.9    62.0    61.9
 areas
Modems                          53.9    57.8    54.9    63.9
Networks                        52.0    53.3    45.6    59.0
Phone lines for modems          51.0    55.1    54.2    61.6
Electrical wiring for           47.2    44.9    40.9    55.0
 communications technology
Electric power for              33.5    34.0    30.4    42.6
 communications technology
Laser disk player/VCRs          36.7    33.5    29.7    36.7
Printers                        27.6    31.4    25.6    33.6
Cable TV                        35.4    28.3    26.4    41.3
Computers                       23.7    26.2    21.7    30.1
TVs                             21.0    15.7    11.3    18.9
Six or more unsatisfactory      50.8    52.3    47.1    59.9
 technology elements
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.6-4.6 percent. 



                         Table III.8
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
             Insufficient Technology Elements by
           Proportion of Students Approved for Free
                       or Reduced Lunch


                                       20 to   40 to
                                Less    less    less
                                than    than    than   70 or
Technology element                20      40      70    more
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Fiber optic cable               86.9    86.3    87.9    88.9
Conduits                        59.2    60.4    64.1    62.2
Phone lines in instructional    57.9    59.9    64.3    68.2
 areas
Modems                          52.1    56.1    62.4    61.9
Networks                        48.0    50.1    56.3    54.3
Phone lines for modems          51.7    56.2    57.4    59.5
Electrical wiring for           45.7    43.5    48.7    47.4
 communications technology
Electric power for              32.2    32.0    35.5    38.1
 communications technology
Laser disk player/VCRs          30.3    30.6    37.8    34.1
Printers                        23.7    28.4    33.3    30.0
Cable TV                        25.5    28.6    31.8    37.8
Computers                       20.9    23.7    28.0    25.4
TVs                             14.5    12.4    16.2    17.3
Six or more unsatisfactory      47.7    49.6    56.0    56.1
 technology elements
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.7-3.9 percent. 



                        Table III. 9
          
          Average Number of Students per Computer
                          by State

State                                Students per computer
----------------------------------  ----------------------
Alabama                                               16.8
Alaska                                                 7.6
Arizona                                               11.9
Arkansas                                              12.5
California                                            21.1
Colorado                                              12.6
Connecticut                                           14.5
Delaware                                              17.7
District of Columbia                                  17.2
Florida                                               12.1
Georgia                                               13.4
Hawaii                                                15.6
Idaho                                                 12.7
Illinois                                              18.9
Indiana                                               11.1
Iowa                                                  10.9
Kansas                                                 9.9
Kentucky                                              10.2
Louisiana                                             20.6
Maine                                                 16.9
Maryland                                              14.9
Massachusetts                                         15.6
Michigan                                              19.9
Minnesota                                             10.2
Mississippi                                           14.5
Missouri                                              15.2
Montana                                                7.9
Nebraska                                              10.3
Nevada                                                21.4
New Hampshire                                         20.8
New Jersey                                            13.5
New Mexico                                            10.8
New York                                              15.6
North Carolina                                        13.4
North Dakota                                           8.7
Ohio                                                  25.3
Oklahoma                                              13.2
Oregon                                                15.5
Pennsylvania                                          14.8
Rhode Island                                          21.6
South Carolina                                        12.4
South Dakota                                           9.0
Tennessee                                             18.7
Texas                                                 11.4
Utah                                                  11.7
Vermont                                               16.9
Virginia                                              12.7
Washington                                            13.7
West Virginia                                         12.9
Wisconsin                                             10.7
Wyoming                                                7.0
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sample errors range ï¿½ 1.1-4.9 percent, except Vermont, which
was 8 percent. 


DATA--FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR
KEY EDUCATION REFORM AND
IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES
========================================================== Appendix IV



                         Table IV.1
          
            Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
           "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
              Requirements of Education Reform
                        Activities--
            Small-Group Instruction, Large-Group
           Instruction, Store and Display Student
               Assessment Materials--by State

                  Small-    Large-       Store     Display
                   group     group     student     student
                instruct  instruct  assessment  assessment
State                ion       ion   materials   materials
--------------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------
Alabama              6.0      29.0        33.7        31.8
Alaska              14.5      51.0        47.2        28.6
Arizona              6.4      35.2        37.2        38.6
Arkansas             5.9      30.3        13.8        12.1
California          15.2      51.3        47.6        40.4
Colorado             4.6      37.7        25.1        23.2
Connecticut          5.3    34.1\a        26.6        19.3
Delaware          15.5\a   \29.7\b      33.9\b      38.7\b
District of          5.7    30.3\a      31.1\a        21.0
 Columbia
Florida              5.8      43.4        29.2        28.6
Georgia              5.6      23.3        21.2        19.7
Hawaii               2.6      36.1      39.2\a        27.7
Idaho                6.0      29.5        30.5        30.0
Illinois            13.5      46.5        32.7        35.6
Indiana             10.0      34.6        27.1        23.4
Iowa                 5.8      32.8        20.4        21.4
Kansas               6.4      53.1        32.9        33.7
Kentucky             4.0      30.5        26.2        19.4
Louisiana            7.4      30.8        33.7        27.3
Maine               17.0    43.1\a      40.9\a      43.0\a
Maryland             8.3      39.3        40.6        25.8
Massachusetts       13.4    40.5\a      33.5\a        28.3
Michigan            12.6      39.4        38.1        37.5
Minnesota            6.8      37.6        28.4        26.4
Mississippi          2.3      28.3        21.7        22.8
Missouri             1.9      33.2        22.1        17.0
Montana              3.4      45.1        28.9        29.0
Nebraska             5.9      60.4        22.2        18.8
Nevada               0.3      26.7        14.2        19.7
New Hampshire       13.6    49.3\a      44.1\a      33.5\a
New Jersey          16.4      28.5        28.9        20.5
New Mexico           3.7      27.8        27.1        23.6
New York            17.9      45.1        38.0        29.1
North Carolina       5.6      26.9        27.9        26.6
North Dakota         3.5      37.0        16.0        23.2
Ohio                17.6      42.7        43.1        33.0
Oklahoma             1.6      34.6        21.6        25.2
Oregon               3.2      44.9        29.3        29.5
Pennsylvania         9.1      29.9        24.5        19.0
Rhode Island        11.3    42.9\a      37.7\a      30.0\a
South Carolina       7.2      33.3        29.7        18.9
South Dakota         9.1      29.2        26.5        20.4
Tennessee            7.5      24.9        19.4        22.3
Texas                1.5      32.1        19.0        17.4
Utah                13.9      35.3        35.2        30.9
Vermont              9.5    41.3\b      37.3\b      32.6\b
Virginia            10.0      31.9        38.3        35.8
Washington          13.9      47.1        40.7        35.7
West Virginia       19.0      49.7        40.3        38.7
Wisconsin           14.6      32.1        24.1        18.3
Wyoming              0.7    35.3\a        11.6         8.0
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                         Table IV.2
          
            Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
           "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
              Requirements of Education Reform
            Activities--Parent Support, Social/
           Health Services, Teacher Planning and
           Private Areas for Counseling/Testing--
                          by State

                                    Teache   Private areas
                Parent     Social/       r             for
                suppor      health  planni     counseling/
State                t    services      ng         testing
--------------  ------  ----------  ------  --------------
Alabama           30.5        41.0    10.4            20.5
Alaska            32.8        40.7    30.7            41.1
Arizona           28.8        25.5    10.9            31.2
Arkansas          11.0        11.7     4.3             8.3
California        39.1        41.4    20.8            46.0
Colorado          16.4        25.4     9.6            22.4
Connecticut       22.6         9.7    11.3            23.0
Delaware        31.6\b      34.5\b    13.7          21.0\a
District of       13.6      29.6\a     9.6          21.6\a
 Columbia
Florida           24.0        23.0    15.5            25.6
Georgia           17.1        22.4    14.2            12.0
Hawaii            32.6        21.2    19.9            30.9
Idaho             15.9        28.8    12.0            19.2
Illinois          23.3        26.4    14.8            37.0
Indiana           17.8         8.9    15.2            23.9
Iowa              21.0        19.4     4.9            16.4
Kansas            21.2        24.2    13.4            30.1
Kentucky          22.4        26.8     7.8            20.1
Louisiana         24.9        26.1    12.8            32.3
Maine           34.0\a      34.6\a    14.1            23.6
Maryland          21.5        23.2    15.4            28.3
Massachusetts     20.1        23.1    13.4            26.2
Michigan          27.5        44.3    12.6            24.5
Minnesota         19.4        20.1    17.4            28.9
Mississippi       22.2        29.8     3.3            12.1
Missouri          10.4        18.9     3.6             9.6
Montana           15.8        30.7     6.1            19.5
Nebraska          23.7        24.1    13.0            29.9
Nevada            13.6        21.0     1.0             5.7
New Hampshire   37.5\a      28.3\a  28.1\a          38.2\a
New Jersey        18.5        17.4    12.2            25.6
New Mexico        13.0        25.6     9.3            26.2
New York          25.3        23.3    16.7            29.8
North Carolina    17.1        21.4    16.1            24.6
North Dakota      20.5        30.9     7.6            15.8
Ohio              30.0        31.7    17.2            31.6
Oklahoma          13.3        29.2     4.6            15.1
Oregon            30.9        39.8    13.0            18.8
Pennsylvania      14.9        15.1    10.0            15.5
Rhode Island    38.6\a      31.9\a    15.0          35.2\a
South Carolina    18.8        30.4    14.3            18.1
South Dakota      19.4        25.8    10.5            17.8
Tennessee         18.2        40.8     8.4            22.9
Texas             17.8        17.7     5.2            13.9
Utah              29.1        25.0    21.5            33.8
Vermont         22.6\a      33.5\a  21.8\b          33.9\b
Virginia          30.6        25.0    18.9            18.6
Washington        29.7        39.7    16.5            30.0
West Virginia     27.4        47.3    15.5            38.9
Wisconsin         25.2        23.9    19.9            30.2
Wyoming            6.8        18.6     1.0            17.7
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                         Table IV.3
          
            Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
           "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
              Requirements of Education Reform
                        Activities--
             Laboratory Science, Library/Media
           Center, Day Care, Before/After School
                       Care--by State

                                                   Before/
                Laborato                             after
                      ry      Library/     Day      school
State            science  media center    care        care
--------------  --------  ------------  ------  ----------
Alabama             41.6           6.1    82.9        62.8
Alaska              61.7          31.1    89.1        63.2
Arizona             44.1          12.3    72.3        50.1
Arkansas            26.5           1.3    87.2        74.1
California          58.2          19.4    75.7        63.5
Colorado            36.6           4.8  64.8\b      45.3\a
Connecticut       43.8\a          13.3  73.2\a        53.6
Delaware          59.3\b        29.1\b  77.0\b        52.4
District of       46.1\a          12.9  46.8\b        45.9
 Columbia
Florida             43.9           9.3    68.8        43.1
Georgia             38.4           0.2    64.9        43.6
Hawaii              48.9          24.6    75.9        23.7
Idaho               34.1          13.0    86.2        76.3
Illinois            46.6          18.0    79.2        69.1
Indiana             33.3           6.4    70.4        47.7
Iowa                28.9           9.2    83.5        64.3
Kansas              40.4          16.5    87.2        61.2
Kentucky            35.2           6.0    77.8        62.0
Louisiana           43.7          13.3    82.5        64.4
Maine               58.6          25.4    87.9        87.5
Maryland            45.0          15.8  57.0\a        36.9
Massachusetts     48.8\a          24.4    78.8      62.0\a
Michigan            48.6          19.0    76.4        56.5
Minnesota           45.7          12.0    73.6        50.2
Mississippi         39.1           4.8    80.5        76.3
Missouri            41.9           5.8    72.4        54.3
Montana             35.1           8.9    91.7        80.4
Nebraska            35.3          11.2    91.0        73.9
Nevada              71.8          11.5    89.9        28.8
New Hampshire     47.0\a        20.9\a    85.9      61.3\a
New Jersey        42.9\a          16.5    79.6      53.3\a
New Mexico          38.5          15.9    66.2        53.6
New York            46.1          22.4    80.0        52.5
North Carolina      38.4           7.2    69.1        33.4
North Dakota        23.7          16.0    80.9        73.0
Ohio                50.6          16.8    88.9        69.5
Oklahoma            23.9           7.0    72.2        60.5
Oregon              51.5           7.6    75.4        54.0
Pennsylvania        30.3           7.8  66.0\a      56.7\a
Rhode Island      45.9\a        26.4\a  77.9\a      63.3\a
South Carolina      47.5           1.7    83.2        63.5
South Dakota        29.2          12.0    88.0        77.5
Tennessee           43.8           7.8    79.2        52.4
Texas               25.1           9.2    73.5        50.3
Utah                40.5          24.6    75.0        74.5
Vermont           38.8\b        14.2\b    86.6      54.8\b
Virginia            40.8          13.5    88.4        56.9
Washington          51.5          15.6    75.0        67.2
West Virginia       43.1          28.4    93.9        81.1
Wisconsin           35.2          13.4    83.9        71.2
Wyoming             30.9          16.4    91.3        59.6
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                         Table IV.4
          
            Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
           "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
              Requirements of Education Reform
                Activities by Community Type

                                         Urban
                         Central       fringe/      Rural/
Activity                    city    large town  small town
----------------------  --------  ------------  ----------
Small-group                 12.0           9.8         7.6
 instruction
Large-group                 38.8          34.8        39.8
 instruction
Store student               29.9          32.2        31.5
 assessment materials
Display student             27.1          26.5        28.5
 assessment materials
Parent support              24.2          23.3        23.1
Social/health services      27.1          24.4        28.4
Teacher planning            14.7          12.8        12.2
Private areas for           30.4          25.8        22.6
 counseling/testing
Laboratory science          48.3          43.7        36.9
Library/media center        13.6          13.9        12.8
Day care                    76.4          70.2        82.4
Before/after school         54.0          51.1        66.2
 care
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.3-3.5 percent. 



                          Table IV.5
           
             Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
            "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
               Requirements of Education Reform
                Activities by Level of School

                                      Elemen  Second  Combin
Activity                                tary     ary      ed
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Small-group instruction                 10.5     7.0     5.6
Large-group instruction                 39.3    33.9    46.9
Store student assessment materials      31.7    30.3    29.7
Display student assessment materials    27.1    28.7    28.5
Parent support                          22.7    24.8    29.8
Social/health services                  27.2    26.5    27.2
Teacher planning                        14.0    10.5    13.8
Private areas for counseling/           28.5    18.1    24.2
 testing
Laboratory science                      51.6    15.3    42.3
Library/media center                    13.3    11.5    27.7
Day care                                76.3    81.3    76.6
Before/after school care                53.3    73.5    67.2
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.4-4.0 percent. 



                          Table IV.6
           
             Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
            "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
               Requirements of Education Reform
             Activities by Proportion of Minority
                           Students


                                                20.5
                                      5.5 to      to
                                Less    less    less    50.5
                                than    than    than      or
Activity                         5.5    20.4    50.4    more
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Small-group instruction          8.9    10.5     9.4     9.7
Large-group instruction         38.2    36.8    36.5    41.0
Store student assessment        30.4    30.7    32.4    32.5
 materials
Display student assessment      27.3    25.6    28.4    29.0
 materials
Parent support                  22.2    20.7    24.8    27.0
Social/health services          25.6    24.9    27.8    31.3
Teacher planning                13.0    12.6    11.4    15.5
Private areas for               22.6    25.2    27.3    30.6
 counseling/testing
Laboratory science              39.3    38.9    42.8    49.1
Library/media center            13.6    11.0    12.7    15.5
Day care                        80.7    73.2    77.0    77.2
Before/after school care        63.2    52.7    57.2    58.4
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.7-4.0 percent. 



                          Table IV.7
           
             Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
            "Not Well at All" Selected Functional
               Requirements of Education Reform
               Activities by Geographic Region

                              Northe  Midwes
Activity                         ast       t   South    West
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Small-group instruction         13.8    10.7     5.5    10.5
Large-group instruction         37.4    40.7    32.3    44.5
Store student assessment        32.5    30.9    26.2    38.6
 materials
Display student assessment      25.6    28.3    23.8    33.9
 materials
Parent support                  22.1    22.8    20.5    30.1
Social/health services          20.8    26.3    25.5    35.3
Teacher planning                14.0    13.4    10.5    16.1
Private areas for               25.3    26.8    19.6    34.1
 counseling/testing
Laboratory science              42.8    41.9    36.2    50.4
Library/media center            17.8    14.0     8.7    16.0
Day care                        76.9    80.9    75.7    76.4
Before/after school care        57.4    63.2    54.1    60.9
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.1-4.8 percent. 



                          Table IV.8
           
             Percent of Schools Reporting Meeting
               "Not Well at All" the Functional
              Requirements of Selected Education
              Reform Activities by Proportion of
            Students Approved for Free or Reduced
                            Lunch


                                       20 to   40 to
                                        less    less      70
                                Less    than    than      or
Activity                     than 20      40      70    more
--------------------------  --------  ------  ------  ------
Small-group instruction          9.2     8.8     8.7    10.0
Large-group instruction         32.5    37.3    40.5    41.3
Store student assessment        29.3    31.0    31.1    34.3
 materials
Display student assessment      25.8    25.0    31.3    29.3
 materials
Parent support                  21.3    23.8    24.6    23.0
Social/health services          20.0    26.9    32.0    30.6
Teacher planning                12.0    12.0    12.7    15.7
Private areas for               21.4    22.9    29.3    31.4
 counseling/testing
Laboratory science              33.0    38.0    48.5    50.3
Library/media center             9.7    10.7    15.2    15.0
Day care                        70.7    79.7    80.9    79.0
Before/after school care        54.5    60.6    61.8    59.3
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 2.1-3.9 percent. 


DATA--ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS
=========================================================== Appendix V



                          Table V.1
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
            Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors--
            Lighting, Heating, Ventilation, Indoor
                    Air Quality--by State

                                                      Indoor
                                                         air
                              Lighti  Heatin  Ventil  qualit
State                             ng       g   ation       y
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama                         14.7    22.0    26.1    23.2
Alaska                          28.1    38.9    51.9    49.9
Arizona                         15.7    19.9    29.5    19.6
Arkansas                         7.5     7.9    11.9    10.0
California                      31.1    24.7    28.8    21.8
Colorado                      21.7\a  29.3\a  37.2\a    24.0
Connecticut                      9.3    23.8  35.3\a    18.5
Delaware                         9.1  25.6\b  30.3\b  26.4\b
District of Columbia          40.2\b  31.0\a  33.9\a  31.5\a
Florida                         16.0    17.8    34.6    30.6
Georgia                          6.9    11.8    12.4     7.7
Hawaii                           7.6     6.0    26.2    20.9
Idaho                           13.2    19.8    36.5    25.5
Illinois                        14.2    21.0    29.2    18.6
Indiana                         22.8    20.7    28.8    21.2
Iowa                             9.5    11.1    24.2    17.1
Kansas                          21.5    22.3    35.2    24.1
Kentucky                        14.6    17.7    25.6    19.2
Louisiana                       18.4    17.5     7.2     6.3
Maine                            9.6    19.7    28.7    30.1
Maryland                        18.0    19.2    28.8    20.5
Massachusetts                   19.9    32.8  41.9\a    30.9
Michigan                        12.0    16.7    25.3    15.4
Minnesota                       11.9    15.0    35.5    30.1
Mississippi                      8.0    10.9     9.4     8.8
Missouri                         4.7    10.1    12.8     8.2
Montana                          4.7     9.4    20.8    12.9
Nebraska                         7.4    16.9    32.9    21.4
Nevada                          15.7    21.0    22.6    20.4
New Hampshire                   14.0    24.8  46.8\a  27.2\a
New Jersey                      11.5    10.5    21.7     8.1
New Mexico                      20.9    23.9    32.7    22.7
New York                        15.8    20.9    36.5    24.1
North Carolina                  17.4    14.0    23.4    17.7
North Dakota                    10.7    20.1    28.6    24.0
Ohio                            13.9    24.9    33.3    18.6
Oklahoma                        16.2    18.7    20.6    16.8
Oregon                          25.8    27.4    40.1    27.0
Pennsylvania                    11.0    17.1    23.3    12.4
Rhode Island                    25.4    25.8    28.9  29.8\a
South Carolina                   7.2    13.0    18.3    18.8
South Dakota                     9.5    15.1    25.7    19.9
Tennessee                        8.3    17.1    19.2    16.0
Texas                           13.0    14.2    16.4    12.3
Utah                            14.1    21.9    34.1    20.9
Vermont                         10.5  22.7\a  32.2\a  25.4\a
Virginia                        14.4    16.6    21.7    19.8
Washington                      24.0    30.4    41.9    32.4
West Virginia                   23.9    34.1    46.5    31.3
Wisconsin                        9.6    13.9    20.5    13.3
Wyoming                          5.0    11.2    24.1    15.4
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 14.3 percent.  Sampling
errors may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for
finite population correction. 



                          Table V.2
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
            Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors--
               Acoustics, Flexibility, Physical
                      Security--by State

                                                      Physic
                                                          al
                                      Acoust  Flexib  securi
State                                    ics   ility      ty
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama                                 32.8    47.6    35.7
Alaska                                  32.4    55.5    27.4
Arizona                                 26.4    52.6    25.3
Arkansas                                17.5    42.4    21.2
California                              34.2    70.4    41.2
Colorado                                21.9  46.5\a    13.3
Connecticut                           28.4\a  48.4\a    22.3
Delaware                              19.3\a  48.6\b  22.3\a
District of Columbia                  51.8\b  52.4\b  37.3\a
Florida                                 28.0    56.6    33.7
Georgia                                 11.9    36.2    16.8
Hawaii                                  37.7  54.1\a    39.7
Idaho                                   35.4    53.8    22.5
Illinois                                29.1    55.4    23.6
Indiana                                 33.0    55.4    18.4
Iowa                                    28.2    55.3    24.1
Kansas                                  30.3    56.6    21.9
Kentucky                                26.4    50.5    21.0
Louisiana                               27.5    53.4    29.6
Maine                                 42.6\a  58.4\a  33.3\a
Maryland                                19.6    23.1    13.4
Massachusetts                         41.3\a  51.2\a    27.9
Michigan                                31.0    47.2    20.2
Minnesota                               20.7    55.6    27.5
Mississippi                             22.0    41.2    28.2
Missouri                                22.5    43.2    14.5
Montana                                 22.9    50.6    18.0
Nebraska                                26.1  46.8\a    21.3
Nevada                                   7.6    53.5    13.7
New Hampshire                         43.8\a  68.8\a    21.6
New Jersey                              30.3  60.6\a    19.8
New Mexico                              32.1    60.5    24.1
New York                                30.0    64.9    21.2
North Carolina                          29.5    59.0    21.8
North Dakota                            32.8    41.3    18.1
Ohio                                    39.6    70.6    23.5
Oklahoma                                27.3    48.8    26.6
Oregon                                  31.8    72.2    28.7
Pennsylvania                            16.7  42.0\a    12.8
Rhode Island                          38.6\a  63.7\a  34.7\a
South Carolina                          22.7    53.8    24.6
South Dakota                            23.6    38.5    11.2
Tennessee                               21.5    48.6    27.9
Texas                                   21.3    43.7    18.3
Utah                                    17.8    52.2    16.1
Vermont                               22.9\a  47.4\b  22.8\b
Virginia                                24.0    37.5    20.6
Washington                              39.7    64.8    34.6
West Virginia                           44.0    68.7    34.4
Wisconsin                               19.7    52.5    18.8
Wyoming                                 17.7    52.6    21.9
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 16 percent.  Sampling errors
may be high for state tables because they are not adjusted for finite
population correction. 



                         Table V.3
          
                Percent of Schools Reporting
          Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors by
                       Community Type

                        Cent
                         ral     Urban fringe/      Rural/
Environmental factor    city        large town  small town
----------------------  ----  ----------------  ----------
Lighting                20.4              17.3        11.4
Heating                 22.8              19.0        17.0
Ventilation             31.5              28.2        23.6
Indoor air quality      22.5              19.0        17.2
Acoustics for noise     31.6              26.3        26.8
 control
Flexibility             59.7              50.8        52.0
Physical security       26.5              22.8        23.5
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.6-3.5 percent. 



                          Table V.4
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
           Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors by
                       Level of School

                                      Elemen  Second  Combin
Environmental factor                    tary     ary      ed
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Lighting                                16.3    13.8    15.0
Heating                                 18.8    20.6    18.6
Ventilation                             26.4    29.2    27.0
Indoor air quality                      19.1    19.4    21.8
Acoustics                               28.3    26.8    32.2
Flexibility                             54.9    51.5    51.4
Physical security                       22.9    27.4    28.8
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.7-3.9 percent. 



                          Table V.5
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
           Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors by
               Proportion of Minority Students


                                                20.5
                                      5.5 to      to
                                Less    less    less    50.5
                                than    than    than      or
Environmental factor             5.5    20.4    50.5    more
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Lighting                        12.1    14.3    16.0    22.9
Heating                         17.7    18.1    18.7    23.7
Ventilation                     25.6    25.4    27.4    31.4
Indoor air quality              17.5    17.6    20.4    22.9
Acoustics                       27.7    25.1    26.8    32.8
Flexibility                     50.8    52.3    55.3    60.1
Physical security               21.6    21.3    22.7    33.3
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.8-3.9 percent. 



                          Table V.6
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
           Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors by
                      Geographic Region

                              Northe  Midwes
Environmental factor             ast       t   South    West
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Lighting                        13.8    12.8    13.7    23.8
Heating                         20.3    18.2    16.3    24.3
Ventilation                     31.4    27.8    20.9    32.3
Indoor air quality              19.9    18.4    16.8    23.5
Acoustics                       29.6    29.3    24.4    30.9
Flexibility                     55.7    54.2    47.0    62.8
Physical security               21.1    21.2    23.9    31.4
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 1.8-4.5 percent. 



                          Table V.7
           
                 Percent of Schools Reporting
           Unsatisfactory Environmental Factors by
           Proportion of Students Approved for Free
                       or Reduced Lunch


                                       20 to   40 to
                                Less    less    less
                                than    than    than   70 or
Environmental factor              20      40      70    more
----------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Lighting                        14.3    13.2    15.8    19.1
Heating                         18.9    15.5    20.6    22.1
Ventilation                     26.1    23.5    28.3    30.6
Indoor air quality              15.8    15.9    22.6    22.6
Acoustics                       24.1    27.0    29.4    32.8
Flexibility                     49.0    53.5    59.0    57.4
Physical security               19.4    18.8    25.9    30.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors range ï¿½ 2.3-3.8 percent. 

   Figure V.1:  Percent of Schools
   With Air-Conditioning in
   Classrooms by State

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


TECHNICAL APPENDIX
========================================================== Appendix VI


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

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 school districts.  We used various experts to
advise us on the design and analysis of this project.  (See app.  I.)

We sent the 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 the physical condition of schools and how well schools
could meet selected functional requirements of education reform, such
as having space for small- and large-group instruction or science
laboratories.  We also asked officials if their schools had
sufficient data, voice, and video technologies and infrastructure to
support these technologies.  A list of the relevant survey items
appears in appendix II.\18

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 and 75 percent of the associated districts.  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. 

In addition, we visited 41 schools in 10 selected school districts
varying in location, size, and minority composition to augment and
illustrate our survey results.  We also reviewed the literature on
education reform, including the relationship between environmental
conditions and student learning.  We conducted our study between
January 1994 and March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\18 A full copy of the questionnaire appears in the first report in
this series, School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
(GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995). 


   SCHOOL AND DISTRICT SURVEYS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

For our review of the physical condition of America's schools, we
wanted to determine physical condition as perceived by the most
knowledgeable school district personnel.  To accomplish this, we
mailed school and district 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 (1) the physical condition of schools; (2)
costs of bringing schools into good overall condition, which we
defined as needing only routine maintenance or minor repairs; and (3)
how well schools could meet the functional requirements of education
programs.  For our school sample, we used the sample for the 1993-94
SASS. 


   SAMPLING STRATEGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

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.\19


--------------------
\19 Robert Abramson et al., 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: 
Sample Design and Estimation, NCES (available in July 1995). 


   SURVEY RESPONSE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

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.\20 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.  Of the
5,459 associated districts in the original sample, 28 were found to
be ineligible for our survey mainly because they were no longer
operating.  Subtracting these ineligible districts from our original
sample of 5,459 associated districts yielded an adjusted district
sample of 5,431 districts.  The number of completed, usable district
questionnaires returned was 4,095.  Dividing the number of completed,
usable returns by the adjusted district sample yielded a district
response rate of 75 percent.\21

We compared school and district nonrespondents with respondents by
urbanicity, location, state, race and ethnicity, and poverty.  There
were few notable differences between the groups.  On the basis of
this information, we assumed that our respondents did not differ
significantly from the nonrespondents.\22 Therefore, we weighted the
respondent data to adjust for nonresponse and yield national and
state-level estimates. 


--------------------
\20 Reasons for ineligibility included school no longer in operation,
entity not a school, private rather than public school, and
post-secondary school only. 

\21 Detailed sample and response information for each sample stratum
is available upon request from GAO.  See appendix VIII for
appropriate staff contacts. 

\22 We did not poll nonrespondents, so we have no way to verify this
assumption. 


   SAMPLING ERRORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

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.  However, it can be
estimated 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. 

For this survey, sampling errors for all school-level estimates at
the national level is estimated to be ï¿½ 2 percent or less at the
95-percent confidence level.  Sampling errors for school-level
estimates at the state level are generally within ï¿½ 10 percent at the
95-percent confidence level.  Sampling errors for a few state-level
estimates may go as high as ï¿½ 12-15 percent.  These are indicated on
the tables in the appendixes.  Sampling errors for district-level
estimates are not available.  With the exception of the information
on recent bond issues passed by districts, all estimates discussed in
this report are school-level estimates at national or state-levels. 


   NONSAMPLING ERRORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6

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 the issues can also result in systematic error. 
Bias can affect both response rates and the way that respondents
answer particular questions.  It is not possible to assess the
magnitude of the effect of biases, if any, on the results of a
survey.  Rather, possibilities of bias can only be identified and
accounted for when interpreting results.  This survey had two major
possible sources of bias:  (1) bias inherent in all self-ratings or
self-reports and (2) sensitivity of compliance issues. 

Bias inherent in self-ratings may impact results of this survey in
two major areas.  First, the self-ratings or self-reports of
technological sufficiency may be overly optimistic for several
reasons.  In our analyses, we included as "sufficient" responses that
indicated moderate and somewhat sufficient capability as well as very
sufficient capability.  This could indicate a wide range of
sufficiency, including some responses that are very close to "not
sufficient." In addition, our analyses showed that without any
objective standards with which to anchor their responses, schools
indicating "sufficient" computers had computer/student ratios that
ranged from 1:1 to 1:292 (a median of 1:11) for those schools that
had computers.  About 300 schools that indicated they had no
computers for instructional use said that was sufficient.  (See table
III.9 for more details.) Finally, technology experts who regularly
consult with school systems report that the level of knowledge among
school administrators and staff of possible use and application of
technology in schools is low--further increasing the likelihood that
these sufficiency estimates are overly optimistic. 

Second, assessing the physical condition of buildings is 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 second kind of bias that may occur results from the sensitivity of
compliance issues.  In this case, our interest in securing
information related to compliance with federal mandates, life-safety
codes, and physical security put us in a highly sensitive area.  For
example, respondents may perceive that accurately reporting problems
in providing access for disabled students could make the school
vulnerable to lawsuits, despite assurances of confidentiality. 
Consequently, in sensitive areas schools may tend toward
underreporting or making conservative estimates. 

In general, survey results were consistent with what we saw in our
site visits. 


   SITE VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:7

To illustrate and augment our survey results, we conducted site
visits in 10 districts:  Chicago, Illinois; Grandview, Washington;
Montgomery County, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New
York; Pomona, California; Ramona, California; Raymond, Washington;
Richmond, Virginia; and Washington, D.C.  Selected to represent key
variables, they varied in location, size, and ethnic composition. 

During these site visits, we interviewed central office staff, such
as district superintendents, facilities directors, and business
managers; and school staff, such as principals and teachers.  We
asked the central office staff about their district demographics,
biggest facilities issues, facilities financing, assessment,
maintenance programs, resources, and barriers to reaching facilities
goals. 

In addition, in each district we asked district officials to show us
examples of "typical," "best," and "worst" schools and verified
reliability of these designations with others.  In some small
districts, we visited all schools.  We spoke with administration and
staff in the schools we toured.  We asked the school staff about
their school's condition, repair and renovation programs, and
facilities needs for educational programs. 


   CLASSIFICATION VARIABLES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8


      COMMUNITY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.1


         CENTRAL CITY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.1.1

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/LARGE TOWN
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.1.2

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/SMALL TOWN
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.1.3

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). 


      SCHOOL LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.2


         ELEMENTARY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.2.1

A school that had grade six or lower or "ungraded" and no grade
higher than eighth. 


         SECONDARY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.2.2

A school that had no grade lower than the seventh or "ungraded" and
had grade seven or higher. 


         COMBINED
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.2.3

A school that had grades higher than the eighth and lower than the
seventh. 


      MINORITY ENROLLMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.3

The percentage of students defined as minority using the following
definition for minority:  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);
Black (not of Hispanic origin). 


      GEOGRAPHIC REGION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.4


         NORTHEAST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.4.1

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. 


         MIDWEST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.4.2

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. 


         SOUTH
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.4.3

Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Texas. 


         WEST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:8.4.4

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada,
Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii. 


      PROPORTION OF STUDENTS
      RECEIVING FREE OR REDUCED
      LUNCH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.5

Calculation 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?"). 


      STUDENT/COMPUTER RATIO
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:8.6

Calculation 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 question 18 ("How many computers for
instructional use does this school have?"). 


DATA SUPPORTING FIGURES IN THE
REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII



                        Table VII. 1
          
          Data for Figure V.1--Percent of Schools
          With Air-Conditioning in Classrooms--by
                           State

                              Percent of schools with air-
State                           conditioning in classrooms
----------------------------  ----------------------------
Alabama                                               97.8
Alaska                                                 4.9
Arizona                                               68.2
Arkansas                                              95.9
California                                            67.2
Colorado                                              28.5
Connecticut                                           21.7
Delaware                                            42.0\b
District of Columbia                                47.4\a
Florida                                               97.8
Georgia                                               92.9
Hawaii                                                18.1
Idaho                                                 26.0
Illinois                                              26.8
Indiana                                               53.5
Iowa                                                  22.0
Kansas                                                63.1
Kentucky                                              92.3
Louisiana                                             96.0
Maine                                                  2.0
Maryland                                              55.3
Massachusetts                                         11.8
Michigan                                              18.9
Minnesota                                             19.2
Mississippi                                           97.3
Missouri                                              51.1
Montana                                               13.4
Nebraska                                            37.9\a
Nevada                                                70.1
New Hampshire                                         00.0
New Jersey                                            21.8
New Mexico                                            70.4
New York                                              10.2
North Carolina                                        87.8
North Dakota                                          18.1
Ohio                                                  15.6
Oklahoma                                              94.5
Oregon                                                17.0
Pennsylvania                                          28.9
Rhode Island                                           5.8
South Carolina                                       100.0
South Dakota                                          10.9
Tennessee                                             95.2
Texas                                                 98.4
Utah                                                  34.4
Vermont                                                1.4
Virginia                                              77.8
Washington                                            31.8
West Virginia                                         58.1
Wisconsin                                             25.7
Wyoming                                               13.4
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Sampling errors are less than ï¿½ 11 percent unless otherwise
noted.  Responses marked with a superscript "a" have sampling errors
equal to or greater than 11 percent but less than 13 percent. 
Responses marked with a superscript "b" have sampling errors equal to
or greater than 13 percent but less than 14.2 percent. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
======================================================== Appendix VIII

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Ella Cleveland, Project Manager, (202) 512-7066
Kathleen Ward, Senior Analyst, (313) 256-8078

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D.  Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Evaluator
Deborah L.  McCormick, Senior Social Science Analyst
Edna M.  Saltzman, Subproject Manager
Diane E.  Schilder, Senior Evaluator

