Today, President Clinton will visit the Abigail Adams School (P.S. 131)
in Queens, New York, to highlight the urgent national need to improve our
school facilities. The Abigail Adams School, an elementary school built in
1926, is over 150 percent of capacity. This classroom crunch means that the
schools 862 students take music classes in the cafeteria, English as a
second language and special education classes in the auditorium lobby, and
science classes from teachers with carts, not classrooms. Its eight temporary
classroomsin three trailers and one modular extensionhouse 240
students. To help communities nationwide modernize their schools, President
Clinton will call on Congress to pass his school construction proposals: $25
billion in School Modernization Bonds and $6.5 billion in Urgent School
Renovation Loans and Grants.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PRESIDENTS PLAN. All students need a safe,
healthy, and modern place to learn. To meet this national priority, President
$25 BILLION IN SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS.
President Clinton proposed $25 billion in school
construction bonds that would be interest-free for school districts and would
help modernize 6,000 schools nationwide. In the U.S. House of Representatives,
Reps. Charles Rangel and Nancy Johnson introduced bipartisan legislation based
on the Presidents proposal with 185 co-sponsors. In the Senate, Sen.
Charles Robb introduced a similar bill.
HOW SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS WORK.
Bondholders would receive federal tax credits rather
than interest payments from school districts, allowing districts to borrow
interest-free for school construction. A similar mechanism has been used
successfully for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs). The $25 billion would be
allocated among states and school districts. Districts could use these 15-year
bonds to modernize existing schools as well as build new ones. The
Presidents proposal would cost $2.4 billion over five years. The
bills innovative financing mechanism is a cost-effective approach to
leveraging local construction that avoids a new bureaucracy.
$6.5 BILLION IN LOANS AND GRANTS FOR URGENT
REPAIRS. President Clinton also proposed a $1.3
billion initiative to make $6.5 billion in grants and interest-free loans for
emergency repairs at 5,000 schools. The initiative would help school districts
repair roofs, heating and cooling systems, and electrical wiring. The
assistance would be targeted to high-need districts, with the smaller amount of
grant aid available for school districts unable to finance capital
expenditures. Sen. Harkin and Rep. Clay have introduced urgent school repair
legislation. In addition, the budget passed by the Senate Appropriations
Committee includes $1.3 billion for school construction as part of its
education block grant; now, these funds need to be dedicated to construction
and targeted to meet our schools needs.
THERE IS AN URGENT NATIONAL NEED FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR.
Communities across the country are struggling to address urgent safety and
facility needs, rising student enrollments, and smaller class sizes.
An estimated $112 billion is needed to bring Americas
schools into good overall condition, according to General Accounting Office in
1995. One-third of American schoolsteaching 14 million studentsneed
extensive repair or building replacements. (School Facilities: The Condition
of Americas Schools, 1995)
Including the costs of rising enrollments and technology
infrastructure, over $300 billion is needed, according to the National
Education Association. (Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost?,
The average public school was built 42 years ago. About
one-third of public schools were built before 1970 and havent been
renovated since at least 1980. (National Center for Education Statistics,
Condition of Education 2000, p. 63).
Public and elementary enrollment is expected to increase by another
million students between 1999 and 2006, to a record 44.4 million
elementary and secondary students. (Condition of Education 2000, p.
CONGRESS BUDGET PLAN IGNORES THE NEEDS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS. In
February, the Clinton-Gore Administration sent Congress a balanced and
responsible budget that made investments in key education initiatives to raise
standards, increase accountability, and invest in what works. This week, on
June 14, the House of Representatives narrowly passed its budget on a partisan
vote. This legislation is built on misguided priorities and insufficient
The House rejected the President's $1.3 billion plan to help states
and localities make emergency repairs to crumbling schools. It has also failed
to act on his School Modernization Bonds proposal.
Meanwhile, the House has passed tax cuts that would drain more than
$550 billion from the surplus. To pay for these tax cuts, the House budget
would cut domestic priorities $29 billion below the President's level, an
average cut of 9 percent.
The House bill also invests too little in other important education
initiatives. It fails to strengthen accountability and turn around failing
schools, reduce class size, provide funds for emergency repairs and renovating
aging schools, sufficiently expand after-school opportunities, prepare more
low-income students for college through GEAR UP, invest in improvements in
teacher quality, and help bridge the digital divide.
INADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES UNDERMINE
A growing body of research has linked student achievement
and behavior to the physical building conditions and overcrowding. Good
facilities appear to be an important precondition for student learning,
provided that other conditions are present that support a strong academic
program in the school.
Studies of schools in the District of Columbia, rural
and urban Virginia, and North Dakota found higher test scores in schools in
better condition. Students in poor school buildings scored five to 11 percent
lower on standardized tests. One study found that poorer achievement was
associated with specific building features such as substandard science
facilities, air conditioning, locker conditions, classroom furniture, more
graffiti, and noisy external environments (See Edwards, 1992; Cash 1993; Hines
1996; and Earthman, 1996).
Heating and air conditioning systems, facilities like science
laboratories and equipment, and color and interior painting appear to be very
important to student achievement. Proper building maintenance is also related
to better attitudes and fewer disciplinary problems (McGuffey, 1982).
Research also indicates that the quality of air inside public school
facilities may significantly affect students' ability to concentrate. The
evidence suggests that youth, especially those under ten years of age, are more
vulnerable than adults to the types of contaminants (asbestos, radon, and
formaldehyde) found in some school facilities (Andrews and Neuroth, 1988).
A Carnegie Foundation (1988) report on urban schools concluded, "the
tacit message of the physical indignities in many urban schools is not lost on
students. It bespeaks neglect, and students' conduct seems simply an extension
of the physical environment that surrounds them." Poplin and Weeres (1992)
reported that, based on an intensive study of teachers, administrators, and
students in four schools, "the depressed physical environment of many schools.
. . is believed to reflect society's lack of priority for these children and
Where the problems with working conditions are serious enough to
impinge on the work of teachers, they result in higher absenteeism, reduced
levels of effort, lower effectiveness in the classroom, low morale, and reduced
job satisfaction. Where working conditions are good, they result in enthusiasm,
high morale, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility (Corcoran et al.,
A study of overcrowded schools in New York City found that students
in such schools scored significantly lower on both mathematics and reading
exams than did similar students in underutilized schools. In addition, when
asked, students and teachers in overcrowded schools agreed that overcrowding
negatively affected both classroom activities and instructional techniques
(Rivera-Batiz and Marti, 1995).
Andrews, James B., and Richard Neuroth (October 1988). "Environmentally
Related Health Hazards in the Schools." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association of School Business Officials International in Detroit,
Michigan. ED 300929.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. An Imperiled
Generation: Saving Urban Schools. Princeton, New Jersey: Author. ED 293940.
Cash, Carol (1993). A Study of the Relationship Between School Building
Condition and Student Achievement and Behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
Corcoran, Thomas B., Lisa J. Walker, and J. Lynne White (1988). Working
in Urban Schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Earthman, Glen (1996). "Review of Research on the Relationship Between
School Buildings, Student Achievement, and Student Behavior." Draft position
paper prepared for the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International.
Edwards, Maureen M. (1992). Building Conditions, Parental Involvement
and Student Achievement in the D.C. Public School System. Unpublished Master
Degree Thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (ED 264 285).
Hines, Eric (1996). Building Condition and Student Achievement and
Behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
McGuffey, Carroll (1982). "Facilities." In Herbert Walberg (ed.),
Improving Educational Standards and Productivity. Berkeley: McCutchan
Poplin, Mary, and Joseph Weeres (1992). Voices from the Inside: A Report
on Schooling from Inside the Classroom. Part One: Naming the Problem. The
Institute for Education in Transformation at the Claremont Graduate School.
Rivera-Batiz, Francisco L., and Lillian Marti (1995). A School System at
Risk: A Study of the Consequences of Overcrowding in New York City Public
Schools. New York: Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers
College, Columbia University.