The Condition of our Public School Facilities

For the first time since 1999, a national survey was completed on the condition of public school facilities. NCES, in the Institute of Education Sciences, conducted this survey in spring 2013 using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). The survey was mailed to approximately 1,800 public school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The unweighted survey response rate was 90 percent. The survey weights were adjusted for questionnaire non-response and the data were then weighted to yield national estimates that represent all eligible public schools in the United States. The findings of this survey are based on self-reported data from public schools and school districts.

This year’s survey reported results based on permanent buildings as well as portable (temporary) buildings. Ninety-nine percent of schools had permanent buildings. The good news is that permanent building systems/features scored better. The bad news is that 31 percent of our schools had portable (temporary) buildings that didn’t score nearly as well. Based on the survey response, it appears that the overall condition of permanent buildings in three-quarters of our schools was rated excellent (20 percent) or good (56 percent). Once schools with portable buildings (nearly a third of our schools) were added to the mix, the scores changed from 20-percent excellent to six-percent excellent, from 56-percent good to 49-percent good. Going from excellent/good to fair/poor the percentages changed on everything from roofing, floors and foundations, ventilation/filtration systems, to emergency management, life-safety features and security systems.

Based on survey responses, 53 percent of public schools needed to spend money on repairs, renovations and modernizations to put the schools’ onsite buildings in good overall condition. The total amount needed was estimated to be approximately $197 billion, and the average dollar amount for schools needing to spend money was about $4.5 million per school. In the 1999 report, three-quarters of schools reported needing to spend some money on repairs, renovations and modernizations to put the school’s onsite buildings into good overall condition. The total amount needed by schools was estimated to be approximately $127 billion, about $2.2 million per school.

It appears we have made some progress on the overall condition of our schools, but the effect of “pay me now or pay me later” is also evident. More schools are in better condition, but the dollars needed to bring them up to “good” has more than doubled. The question — is that progress?

This article originally appeared in the issue of .

Featured

  • Geometric abstract school illustration

    How Design Shapes Learning and Success

    Can the color of a wall, the curve of a chair, or the hum of fluorescent lights really affect how a student learns? More schools are beginning to think so.

  • Texas State University Completes Stadium Renovations

    Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, recently announced that it has completed a series of additions and renovations to its football stadium, according to a news release. Formerly known as the Bobcat Stadium End Zone Complex, the Johnny and Nathali Weisman Football Performance Center is an 85,000-square-foot expansion featuring hospitality spaces, banquet spaces, exterior concourses, and upgrades to the field house.

  • Illinois District Boosts Security at High-School Stadium

    Richmond-Burton Community High School in Richmond, Ill., recently announced that it has completed the redesigned entrance to its high school stadium with a new focus on school security and community engagement, according to a news release. The district partnered with Wold Architects and Engineers on the project as part of District #157’s year-long facilities master plan.

  • T&T Construction Management Group Completes Pasco High School Expansion

    Pasco High School in Dade City, Fla., recently announced that it has completed an expansion project in partnership with T&T Construction Management Group, Inc., Harvard Jolly Architecture, and Williams Company.

Digital Edition