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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 2 percent or less at the 95-percent confidence level. Sampling errors for school-level estimates at the state level are generally within � 10 percent at the 95-percent confidence level. Sampling errors for a few state-level estimates may go as high as � 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 � 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