[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES: INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-607 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 13, 2008................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 87
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut, prepared statement of................ 88
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, letter submitted........................ 90
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Additional submissions:
Cato report: ``Private Education is Good for the
Poor''............................................. 7
Cato analysis: ``Money and School Performance''...... 7
Additional statements concerning the Davis-Bacon Act. 7
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Additional questions sent to witnesses................... 78
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Prepared statement of.................................... 89
Statement of Witnesses:
Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., M.D., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Louisiana....................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
U.S. Department of Labor report concerning the Davis-
Bacon Act, dated March 30, 2004........................ 26
Caddick, Judi, on behalf of the National Education
Association................................................ 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Responses to follow-up questions......................... 79
Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Delaware...................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Chandler, Hon. Ben, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kentucky.......................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Cullinane, Mary, director of the innovation & business
development team, Microsoft Corp........................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Responses to follow-up questions......................... 82
Etheridge, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Additional submission: ``Supporters of America's Better
Classroom Act of 2007''................................ 25
Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Hooley, Hon. Darlene, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Additional submissions:
``Daylighting in Schools,'' condensed report, August
20, 1999........................................... 89
``Greening America's Schools Costs and Benefits''.... 89
``Green Building Smart Market Report''............... 89
King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Iowa.................................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Report: ``The Federal Davis-Bacon Act: The Prevailing
Mismeasure of Wages''.................................. 32
Loebsack, Hon. Dave, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa.............................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Letter from Governor Culver.............................. 21
Letter from the U.S. Green Building Council.............. 22
McCluskey, Neal, associate director, Center for Educational
Freedom, the Cato Institute................................ 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Moore, Kathleen J., director of the school facilities
planning division, California Department of Education...... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Vallas, Paul, superintendent, New Orleans Recovery School
District................................................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Vincent, Paula J., Ph.D., superintendent of schools, Clear
Creek Amana CSD............................................ 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Waters, Jim, director of policy and communications, Bluegrass
Institute for Public Policy Solutions...................... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES: INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
----------
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Woolsey,
Wu, Holt, Davis of California, Sarbanes, Loebsack, Altmire,
Yarmuth, Hare, Courtney, Shea-Porter, McKeon, Castle, Ehlers,
Biggert, Platts, Keller, and Boustany.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain,
Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); Jody Calemine, Labor
Policy Deputy Director; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy
Advisor; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Lloyd
Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff
Assistant, Education; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Danielle
Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Jill Morningstar, Education
Policy Advisor; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock,
Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel
Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Dray Thorne, Senior
Systems Administrator; Daniel Weiss, Special Assistant to the
Chairman; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; and Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority
Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Cameron Coursen,
Minority Assistant Communications Director; Rob Gregg, Minority
Legislative Assistant; Susan Ross, Minority Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority
Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Sally Stroup,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Loren Sweatt, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. Good morning, and welcome to
today's hearing on Modern Public School Facilities: Investing
in the Future. All of our children deserve a modern, safe,
clean, and healthy place to learn, regardless of what
neighborhood they live in. But today the unfortunate reality in
many communities is that schools are literally crumbling.
In 1996, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said it
would take $112 billion to bring schools into good overall
condition. In 2000, the National Center for Education
Statistics put that figure at $127 billion, concluding that 75
percent of schools were in various stages of disrepair.
In 2000, the National Education Association said the U.S.
would have to spend $322 billion to bring all schools to where
they are safe, well-constructed, and have up-to-date education
technologies. And in 2005, the American Society of Civil
Engineers gave U.S. schools a D on its national infrastructure
report card.
Most recently in 2006, the group Building Educational
Success Together said that previous studies grossly
underestimated the need for school improvement and new
construction. According to BEST, there continue to be millions
of students in sub-standard and crowded conditions,
particularly in schools serving low-income and minority
students.
It is common sense that sub-standard conditions in our
schools make it harder for teachers to teach and children to
learn. And the research bears this out consistently finding
relationships between facility quality and student achievement
independent of other factors. It is not just learning that
suffers, children's health can suffer also.
In 2004, a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of
Education found that poor environments in schools primarily
caused by indoor pollutants adversely influence the health,
performance, and attendance of students. In 1996, the GAO
report found that almost 30 percent of U.S. schools have
unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory ventilation.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung
Association have reported that asthma accounts for more than 10
million missed school days per year. Since one of the key
factors in student learning is the time spent in class, this is
a problem both for children's health and for their academic
achievement.
Finally, schools in disrepair can adversely affect entire
communities. Poor school quality directly lowers residential
property values and can reduce the community's ability to
attract businesses. Meanwhile, investment in school facilities
brings money into local communities through job creation and
supply purchases. We all agree on the urgent national priority
of providing every child with a worldclass education because it
is the right thing to do and because our continued economic
vitality depends upon it.
It is clear that we cannot satisfy the priority unless we
help states and school districts improve the physical condition
of school buildings and facilities. In fiscal year 2001, the
Congress provided $1.2 billion in emergency school repairs. But
beginning in the following year with President Bush's first
budget, the federal government has provided almost no direct
help to states and schools to pay for school construction and
repair.
It would be wise for us to increase federal investments in
school facilities regardless of the nation's economic health.
But I would be remiss if I did not point out that the weakening
economy adds more incentives for Washington to act. As state
and local revenues shrink, states and cities will look to make
up those budget shortfalls by cutting spending.
Budget cutbacks will harm essential services like
education, and they will also make the economic problems worse
that we are seeing. We must invest in making every school a
place communities can be proud of and where children can be
eager to learn.
And I want to thank our witnesses for joining us, including
members of Congress, our colleagues who have made time to be
here today. Congressman Chandler will discuss his 21st Century
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, legislation which
I am proud to co-sponsor.
We will hear from Congressman Etheridge who along with
Chairman Rangel has introduced America's Better Classrooms Act.
And we will also hear from two outstanding members of this
committee, Congressmen Holt and Loebsack and from Congresswoman
Hooley, co-chair of our Green Schools Caucus.
Thank you to all of them for being here, and I look forward
to hearing their ideas. And at this point, I would like to
recognize Mr. McKeon, the senior Republican on our committee.
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing on ``Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future.''
All of our children deserve a modern, safe, clean and healthy place
to learn, regardless of what neighborhood they live in. But today, the
unfortunate reality in many communities is that schools are literally
crumbling.
A number of estimates over the years have revealed the magnitude of
the problem.
In 1996, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said it would
take $112 billion to bring schools into ``good overall condition.''
In 2000, the National Center for Education Statistics put that
figure at $127 billion, concluding that 75 percent of schools were in
various stages of disrepair.
In 2000, the National Education Association said the U.S. would
have to spend $322 billion to bring all schools to the point where they
are ``safe, well-constructed'' and have ``up-to-date technologies.''
In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. schools
a `D' on its national infrastructure report card.
Most recently, in 2006, Building Educational Success Together said
that previous studies ``grossly underestimated'' the need for school
improvement and new construction.
According to BEST, ``There continue to be millions of students in
substandard and crowded conditions,'' particularly in schools serving
low-income and minority students.
It is common sense that substandard conditions in our schools make
it harder for teachers to teach and children to learn.
It's not just learning that suffers; children's health can suffer,
too.
A 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found
that poor environments in schools, primarily caused by indoor
pollutants, do ``adversely influence the health, performance, and
attendance of students.''
The 1996 GAO report found that almost 30 percent of U.S. schools
have unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory ventilation.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung
Association have reported that asthma accounts for more than 10 million
missed school days per year. Since one of the key factors in student
learning is time spent in class, this is a problem both for children's
health and their academic achievement.
Finally, schools in disrepair can adversely affect entire
communities.
Poor school quality directly lowers residential property values and
can reduce a community's ability to attract businesses. Meanwhile,
investment in school facilities brings money into local economies
through job creation and supply purchases.
We all agree on the urgent national priority of providing every
child with a world-class education--because it is the right thing to do
and because our continued economic vitality depends on it.
It is clear that we cannot satisfy that priority unless we help
states and school districts improve the physical condition of their
school buildings and facilities.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $1.2 billion for emergency
school repairs.
But beginning the following year, with President Bush's first
budget, the federal government has provided almost no direct aid to
help states and schools pay for school construction and repair. It has
remained this way during the entire Bush administration.
It would be wise for us to increase federal investments in school
facilities regardless of the nation's economic health. But I would be
remiss if I did not point out that the weakening economy adds more
incentive for Washington to act.
As state and local tax revenues shrink, states and cities will look
to make up that budget shortfall by cutting spending. Budget cutbacks
will harm essential services, like education, and they will also
exacerbate the economic problems we're seeing.
We can help mitigate the economic damage by investing in school
construction projects that will create jobs and inject demand into the
economy.
We will also hear proposals for giving the federal government a
role in helping schools make much-needed repairs and renovations and
build new facilities.
We must invest in making every school a place that communities can
be proud of and where children will be eager to learn.
I thank all of our witnesses for joining us, including a number of
colleagues who have made the time to be here today. Congressman
Chandler will discuss his 21st Century High-Performing Public School
Facilities Act, legislation I was proud to cosponsor.
We'll hear from Congressman Etheridge, who along with Chairman
Rangel has introduced the America's Better Classrooms Act.
We'll also hear from two outstanding members of this committee,
Congressmen Holt and Loebsack, and from Congresswoman Hooley, head of
our Green Schools Caucus.
Thanks to all of you for being here. I look forward to hearing your
ideas about how we can address this important national priority.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Miller. We are here today
to examine public school facilities as part of a broader,
ongoing review of our nation's K-12 education system. I am
pleased to have two distinguished panels of witnesses with us
here today.
First we will hear from members on both sides of the aisle
who can help articulate views on the appropriate federal role
in this area. Public school facilities are an important issue
in states and local communities. And I am pleased to have
members here to represent the views of their constituents.
We also have a panel of experts who will offer a broad and
diverse range of perspectives on what constitutes a modern
public school facility, how such facilities impact student
learning, and the role of the federal government in what has
traditionally been a state and local right and responsibility.
Before we delve into the details of school facilities and
financing, I want to take a step back and consider the
historical and constitutional context. Traditionally states and
local communities have retained control over education,
particularly public K-12 education.
Federal intervention has been targeted narrowly to fulfill
a pressing need while maintaining the autonomy and authority of
communities. For instance, the No Child Left Behind Act is
intended to help close the achievement gap between
disadvantaged students and their peers by providing additional
funding and support for schools that serve low-income and
disadvantaged students.
And that goes back to when the Elementary/Secondary
Educational Act was originally passed in the 1960s. The No
Child Left Behind was a reauthorization of that act. But it
does not replace the rights and responsibilities that lie with
states and communities.
For all the attention that is paid to No Child Left Behind,
it is important to keep two things in mind. First, even under
NCLB the federal government is responsible only for about 9
percent of all K-12 education spending. Second, despite claims
of NCLB mandates, the reality is that states and local
communities continue to set curricula, academic standards,
qualifications for their teachers, and proficiency targets for
their students.
The federal investment in education is important. It allows
us to set national priorities and ensure that as a nation we
can agree that all children deserve the chance to learn and
succeed.
However, although this modest targeted federal intervention
is appropriate, there are very real concerns about extending
the federal role. Today we are going to look at school
facilities. This is a topic of great importance in the larger
educational debate in terms of students' safety, economic and
ecological impact on communities, and equitable educational
opportunity.
Yet while school facilities are important, I question
whether they are the silver bullet that some believe them to
be. We know what matters is not just where students learn, but
what they learn. This is not to minimize the importance of
school facilities, but rather to emphasize the questions we
must consider when evaluating how to spend federal dollars.
The fact is any federal intervention into school
construction carries with it significant burdens. For instance,
we know that the Depression-era Davis-Bacon wage mandates can
drive up the cost of federal projects. Meaning that we get less
bang for our buck. In a time of limited federal resources, many
question why we would drain funds from other critical education
priorities in order to fund an inefficient construction
mandate.
Just yesterday the committee received a letter from leading
business and construction groups outlining flaws within the
Davis-Bacon wage mandates that would be tied to federal school
construction. The National School Boards Association joined in
signing that letter and voicing those concerns. As a former
school board member myself, I am keenly aware of the catch-22
of federal funds tied to federal mandates. And I hope we are
mindful of those concerns today.
We also know that great strides have been made in
partnerships between states, localities, and the private sector
to develop state-of-the-art school facilities. Rather than
stifling these innovative strategies with a new federal program
and the red tape that comes with it, we should be encouraging
these types of partnerships.
Local schools are woven into the fabric of our communities.
And it seems to me there is no more fundamental local
responsibility than to ensure a safe, welcoming learning
environment for our children.
Mr. Chairman, we are privileged to be hearing from so many
members who care deeply about this issue. And for that reason,
I will limit my remarks. Let me just take this opportunity once
again to thank the members who are here or will be here with us
as well as the esteemed members of our second panel.
This is an important topic, one that I look forward to
approaching thoughtfully as part of our ongoing discussion
about strengthening educational opportunities for all students.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior
Republican, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller. We're here today to examine public
school facilities as part of a broader, ongoing review of our nation's
K-12 educational system.
I'm pleased to have two distinguished panels of witnesses with us
here today. First, we'll hear from members on both sides of the aisle
who can help articulate views on the appropriate federal role in this
area. Public school facilities are an important issue in states and
local communities, and I'm pleased to have members here to represent
the views of their constituents.
We also have a panel of experts who will offer a broad and diverse
range of perspectives on what constitutes a modern public school
facility; how such facilities impact student learning; and the role of
the federal government in what has traditionally been a state and local
right and responsibility.
Before we delve into the details of school facilities and
financing, I want to take a step back and consider the historical and
constitutional context. Traditionally, states and local communities
have retained control over education, particularly public K-12
education. Federal intervention has been targeted narrowly to fulfill a
pressing need, while maintaining the autonomy and authority of
communities. For instance, the No Child Left Behind Act is intended to
help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers by providing additional funding and support for schools that
serve low-income and disadvantaged students. It does not replace the
rights and responsibilities that lie with states and communities.
For all the attention that is paid to No Child Left Behind, it's
important to keep two things in mind. First, even under NCLB, the
federal government is responsible for only about nine percent of all K-
12 education spending. Second, despite claims of NCLB mandates, the
reality is that states and local communities continue to set curricula,
academic standards, qualifications for their teachers, and proficiency
targets for their students.
The federal investment in education is important. It allows us to
set national priorities and ensure that as a nation, we can agree that
all children deserve the chance to learn and succeed. However, although
this modest, targeted federal intervention is appropriate, there are
very real concerns about extending the federal role.
Today we're going to look at school facilities. This is a topic of
great importance in the larger educational debate in terms of student
safety, economic and ecological impact on communities, and equitable
educational opportunity.
Yet while school facilities are important, I question whether they
are the silver bullet that some believe them to be. We know what
matters is not just where students learn, but what they learn. This is
not to minimize the importance of school facilities, but rather to
emphasize the questions we must consider when evaluating how to spend
federal dollars.
The fact is, any federal intervention into school construction
carries with it significant burdens. For instance, we know that
Depression-era Davis-Bacon wage mandates can drive up the cost of
federal projects, meaning that we get less bang for our buck. In a time
of limited federal resources, many question why we would drain funds
from other critical education priorities in order to fund an
inefficient construction mandate. Just yesterday, the Committee
received a letter from leading business and construction groups
outlining flaws within the Davis-Bacon wage mandates that would be tied
to federal school construction. The National School Boards Association
joined in signing that letter and voicing those concerns. As a former
school board member myself, I am keenly aware of the catch-22 of
federal funds tied to federal mandates, and I hope we are mindful of
those concerns today.
We also know that great strides have been made in partnerships
between states, localities, and the private sector to develop state-of-
the-art school facilities. Rather than stifling these innovative
strategies with a new federal program and the red tape that comes with
it, we should be encouraging these types of partnerships.
Local schools are woven into the fabric of our communities, and it
seems to me there is no more fundamental local responsibility than to
ensure a safe, welcoming learning environment for our children.
Mr. Chairman, we are privileged to be hearing from so many members
who care deeply about this issue, and for that reason, I will limit my
remarks. Let me just take this opportunity once again to thank the
members who are here with us as well as the esteemed experts on our
second panel. This is an important topic, and one that I look forward
to approaching thoughtfully as part of our ongoing discussion about
strengthening educational opportunities for all students. Thank you,
and I yield back.
______
[Internet address to Cato report, ``Private Education is
Good for the Poor,'' submitted by Mr. McKeon, follows:]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/tooley.pdf
______
[Internet address to Cato policy analysis, ``Money and
School Performance,'' submitted by Mr. McKeon, follows:]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.pdf
______
[Additional statements submitted by Mr. McKeon follow:]
February 12, 2008.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman; Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: As your committee
prepares for its hearing on ``Modern Public School Facilities:
Investing in the Future,'' the undersigned organizations would like to
take this opportunity to thank you for addressing this important topic.
Like you, we believe the foundation for our future is education, and
that foundation begins in the walls of our nation's schools. To keep
that foundation strong, however, we urge you to refrain from imposing
costly Davis-Bacon Act requirements on school construction projects
until serious flaws with that law's wage determination process are
fixed.
Federal authorities have concluded that Davis-Bacon wage rates are
inaccurate. A series of audits by outside agencies, as well as the
Department of Labor's (DOL) own Office of Inspector General (OIG), have
revealed substantial inaccuracies in Davis-Bacon Act wage
determinations and suggested that they are vulnerable to fraud. In
addition, DOL's OIG released three reports highly critical of the wage
determination program. In fact, one report from 2004 found one or more
errors in nearly 100 percent of the wage surveys reviewed. Expanding a
wage determination process that has been proven to be flawed is unfair
to the American taxpayer and American businesses, as well as parents
and students who see scarce resources used inefficiently.
Davis-Bacon's wage determination flaws harm the very employees the
law was intended to protect. Research from the Heritage Foundation
found that Tampa Bay area electricians are underpaid by 38 percent
under Davis-Bacon's system when compared to the more statistically
sound wage determination method used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Forthcoming academic research will provide further evidence from urban
areas across the nation.
Davis-Bacon also has a negative impact on equal access to work
opportunities. It prevents many qualified small and minority-owned
businesses from even bidding on public projects, because the
complexities and inefficiencies in the Act make it nearly impossible
for small businesses to compete. As a result, few minority firms win
Davis-Bacon contracts, and many others give up trying. That is not a
lesson any of us want to teach our children.
Finally, Davis-Bacon's flaws will cost taxpayers more to provide
students with less. Davis-Bacon has been shown to increase public
construction costs by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent above what the
project would have cost in the private sector. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the Davis-Bacon Act already costs
taxpayers more than $9.5 billion over the 2002 to 2011 period relative
to the 2001 appropriations and $10.5 billion relative to 2001
appropriations adjusted for inflation. Any Davis-Bacon costs from
legislation your committee considers will be directly passed on to the
American taxpayers in these school districts, coming at the direct
expense of education dollars for children in classrooms.
We urge Congress to make sure inaccuracies and flaws in the process
are corrected before Congress considers extending the Davis-Bacon Act
requirements to additional areas of the law.
Sincerely,
Associated Builders and Contractors,
Independent Electrical Contractors,
National Federation of Independent Business,
National School Boards Association,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
______
Statement for the Record Submitted on Behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors
On behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and its
more than 24,000 general contractors, subcontractors, material
suppliers and related firms, we write to thank the committee for
examining an issue as important as the facilities for our public
education system. However, ABC is concerned about possible attachment
of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage regulations, which are burdened by
systemic and fatal flaws that should be rectified before the prevailing
wage regime is considered for expansion to cover more school projects.
First, we wish to assure you that ABC members share your concern
for guaranteeing the quality and affordability of creating school
facilities that safely and securely educate our nation's children and
prepare them for the increasingly competitive global market. Our
members live and work in communities across the country, building and
working on countless school projects.
ABC is therefore troubled that Davis-Bacon's anti-competitive and
costly bureaucracy and statistically troubled process will be
potentially injected into the already complex issue of building
schools. We enumerate some of the most critical problems here.
Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Studies
show that projects under Davis-Bacon are 20 percent higher than similar
projects completed under market conditions. The Congressional Budget
Office has estimated that the Davis-Bacon Act costs taxpayers more than
$9.5 billion over the 2002 to 2011 period relative to the 2001
appropriations and $10.5 billion relative to 2001 appropriations
adjusted for inflation.
A number of studies have examined the effects of Davis-Bacon or
related requirements on projects that have traditionally been
undertaken by local and state authorities, such as school construction
efforts. For example, a 2005 study conducted by the Minnesota Taxpayers
Association found that the state's method for calculating prevailing
wage rates on public construction increased project costs by as much as
10 percent. Meanwhile, an August 2003 study from the California
Institute for County Government at California State University-
Sacramento found that federal commercial prevailing wage rates and
state prevailing wage rates in California are, on average, 36 percent
to 55 percent higher than market wages.
Similar studies have specifically examined the impact of prevailing
wage laws on school construction costs. A 2007 study from the non-
profit Mackinac Center for Public Policy concluded that Michigan's
prevailing wage law costs state taxpayers approximately $250 million
per year. In particular, the study found that because state guarantees
on school district construction bonds trigger prevailing wage
requirements, the prevailing wage law also applies to most public
school construction. Exempting public school districts alone from the
law's requirements would likely save state taxpayers around $125
million annually.
Michigan's neighboring state, Ohio, found critical monetary savings
by exempting its public school projects from costly prevailing wage
requirements. Ohio's Legislative Service Commission concluded in 2002
that striking down prevailing wage requirements for school construction
saved a total of $487.9 million. That equated to an overall savings of
nearly 11 percent--a savings that taxpayers anywhere would welcome.
Recent numbers show the federal cost to taxpayer remains high. This
month, Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute examined the current
Wage and Hour Division's Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determinations and
compared them to those calculated by the Department of Labor's Bureau
of Labor Statistics. It concluded that the current method used to
calculate Davis-Bacon wages inflates labor costs by 22 percent. That
leads to an additional charge to taxpayers of $8.6 billion per year.
In addition, Davis-Bacon's wage determination process is fatally
flawed. The Beacon Hill Institute calculated its figure by comparing
the wage determination method currently used by the Department of
Labor's Wage and Hour Division to outcomes from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, which (as its name implies) carries out professional,
reliable, and unbiased statistical research. Current Davis-Bacon wage
surveys are anything but reliable and unbiased.
A 2004 report from the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector
General found that $22 million of taxpayer money spent to fix the wage-
determination process ``resulted in limited improvements'' and that
``problems in past audits continued.'' In fact, a sample of surveys
found some problems had actually increased.
Three main fundamental flaws plague Davis-Bacon wage calculations.
First, the Office of Inspector General noted, ``the credibility of wage
determinations remains questionable'' because an audit found problems
in nearly 100 percent of Wage and Hour surveys examined. That is not an
area where such consistency is admired.
Moreover, the survey process is hampered by bad methodology. For
example, because the survey process is voluntary, there is statistical
bias toward a small group of self-interested respondents. The Office of
Inspector General's report noted that the government essentially
surveys its own wages, and ``tries to avoid surveying Federally funded
building and residential construction already subject to [Davis-Bacon],
but this cannot always be done due to lack of sufficient survey data.''
Finally, the Office of Inspector General's report noted that survey
data is untimely. A full 84 percent of wage surveys took more than a
year and a half to complete, and 21 percent take more than three years.
In other cases, data wasn't updated--leaving one survey in force for
seven years.
The Office of Inspector General report called for a
``representative and unbiased'' survey of the Davis-Bacon wage
determination process. That request remains unmet.
Davis-Bacon's wage determination flaws harm taxpayers and
employees. Davis-Bacon wage determination errors can come at a high
cost to taxpayers, businesses, and employees. When wages are set too
high, taxpayers foot the bill. But when wage determinations are too
low, Davis-Bacon harms the very working Americans it was designed to
help.
The Department of Labor's investigation found that the flaws from
Davis-Bacon's wage determination plan included ``inaccuracies in
published wage determinations that ranged from overstatements for some
crafts of $1.08 per hour to understatements of $1.29 per hour.''
Research from the Heritage Foundation published in December 2007
shows that ``Davis-Bacon wages vary from 38 percent below market wages
for electricians in the Tampa Bay area to 73 percent above market wages
for plumbers in San Francisco.'' In the cities studied by Heritage, the
Foundation found that Davis-Bacon calculations varied ``an average of
33 percent from market wages.''
Recent research from the Beacon Hill Institute, noted above,
reached similarly troubling findings. That group found that employees
in Florida, North Carolina, Michigan Virginia, and Maine were underpaid
using current Davis-Bacon methodology.
Congress should not expand Davis-Bacon Act into additional areas of
the law until it is fixed. Evidence of systemic trouble is hard to
ignore. In addition to the additional costs imposed by taxpayers and
discrimination against some construction employees, governmental bodies
have provided ample alarms.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated savings solely from
reducing the regulatory and paperwork burden if the Davis-Bacon Act
were repealed to be more than $4 billion in discretionary spending
outlays over a five-year period, reports the General Accounting Office
in a March 2000 report. The report also noted that repealing Davis-
Bacon or raising its project-value threshold ``would allow
appropriators to reduce fends spent on federal construction'' and
``increase the opportunities for employment of less skilled workers.''
The Office of Management and Budget has questioned the ``outdated
threshold'' of applying Davis-Bacon Act to projects worth just $2,000,
writing that the low level may be ``contrary to Congress' original
intent to have the Act govern larger purchases, but also overburdens
small business.'' More importantly, the Office of Management and Budget
noted: ``Historically, wage rates have been based on data that is years
old, poorly verified, or from surveys with low response rates. These
and other factors have resulted in wage rates that may have
underestimated or overestimated the true local wage, thereby
contravening the intent of the act not to undermine local wage and
benefit standards.''
It is difficult to disagree with the Office of Management and
Budget, which argued that Davis-Bacon's flawed wage determinations may
``[contravene] the intent of the act not to undermine local wage and
benefits standards.''
We will leave with this thought. In 1979 the General Accounting
Office said that ``After nearly 50 years, the Department of Labor has
not developed an effective program to issue and maintain current and
accurate wage determinations; it may be impractical to do so.''
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments, and
we thank you in advance for giving careful consideration to the views
of ABC and its more than 24,000 members nationwide who urge your
committee to consider these flaws inherent to the current Davis-Bacon
system before expanding it into our nation's schools.
______
Chairman Miller. First of all, I want to thank Mr. McKeon
for his statement and say that under committee rule 12-A, all
members may submit an opening statement in writing which will
be made part of the permanent record. And I know a number of
members that have spoken to me about that. And we will recess
for a moment until the first of our witnesses comes back from
the floor vote. My understanding was this is one vote, and then
they will return and we will begin then. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Miller. The committee will reconvene. And again, I
want to welcome our colleagues. And we are going to hear from
Congressman Ben Chandler, Congressman Mike Castle, Congressman
Bob Etheridge, Congressman Dave Loebsack, Congressman Charles
Boustany, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, Congressman Steve King,
and Congressman Rush Holt. And we are going to hear from you in
that order.
Ben, we are going to begin with you. Welcome to the
committee. I am going to ask you all, to the extent that you
can, to stay within the 5 minutes. We have two full panels here
today.
So thank you, and welcome. And thank you for the attention
that you have given this problem and the legislation that many
of you have introduced. I want to thank you in advance for
that.
Ben?
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN CHANDLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to go
as fast as my slow Kentucky diction will allow me to go.
Anyway, I also understand that we will have another motion to
adjourn very shortly. So hopefully I can at least get through
my testimony.
I appreciate you bringing this matter, the matter of our
public education, to the forefront here in this hearing and
particularly to address the condition of our public schools.
This hearing is about more than just bricks and mortar. It is
about providing our children with a safe and healthy learning
environment and the technological resources they need to
compete in the global world.
The U.S. Department of Education tells us that modern,
functional school facilities are a precondition for student
learning. Study after study links student performance with
building conditions.
Many of our schools are in poor health stemming from old
and outdated buildings. The average public school building is
over 40 years old and often contains hazards such as lead-based
paint, asbestos, poor lighting, and ill-functioning heating and
cooling systems.
To compound these problems, one-fourth of our schools are
overcrowded from trying to cram today's student population into
yesterday's classrooms. The needs of our public schools do not
stop with buildings. In today's world, technology is a vital
component to a quality education.
In classrooms across the world, interactive white boards
make learning come alive, and computers connect what our
children learn in history class to what is going on in the
world today. This technology sparks their interest. It
transforms math from mere numbers into exciting, future-driving
fields like architecture and engineering.
These technological capabilities exist, but only for the
fortunate minority. U.S. schools average one computer for every
four students. While some schools are fully equipped with
computer and Internet access, many fall below that average.
My own state of Kentucky has made significant improvements
in this area in the past few years. We are now among those
leading the nation in Internet access with 100 percent of our
schools linked to high-speed broadband connection. But what
good is Internet access without computers?
Even in Kentucky where the state average is fewer than four
students per computer, there are still numerous schools where
as many as 15 to 20 children must share one computer. Schools
like this can be found in every state.
Given the condition of our children's learning
environments, it is no surprise that our students are
struggling to compete in this ever-globalizing world.
Our federal government has an important role to play in
preventing our children from falling behind. While our public
school system is administered by the states, the education of
our children is a national priority. Our federal government has
validated this numerous times in the past decade through the
creation of programs like No Child Left Behind, Head Start, and
the federal school lunch program.
While Congress has recognized that educational excellence
is vital to the economy and national competitiveness, too often
we fail to provide these programs with the funding necessary to
make these goals a reality. I believe it is time that Congress
invests in our school infrastructure.
That is why I have introduced H.R. 3021, the 21st Century
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill invests
in matching grants and low-interest loans to schools for
construction, repair, and modernization of school buildings and
educational technology.
This bill also provides funds for teachers' technology
training, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and
energy-efficient facilities, all of which are vital to our
kids' educational environment. Each passing year it is more
costly for states to provide schools with the money they need
to make basic essential improvements. With rising gas prices
and a slowing economy, states need our help. And this is why
the federal government must act now.
We must provide our children with safe, modern buildings in
which to learn. We must provide our children with computers. We
must provide them with cutting-edge facilities and technology
so they can create the machines and the ideas of tomorrow. We
must equip them to build the future of our country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
[The statement of Mr. Chandler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Chandler, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Kentucky
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend the Committee for
holding this hearing to address the condition of our public schools.
This hearing is about more than just bricks and mortar, it is about
providing our children with a safe and healthy learning environment and
the technological resources they need to compete in a global world.
The U.S. Department of Education tells us that modern, functional
school facilities are a precondition for student learning. Study after
study links student performance with building conditions. Many of our
schools are in poor health, stemming from old and outdated buildings.
The average public school building is over 40 years old and often
contains hazards such as lead-based paint, asbestos, poor lighting, and
ill-functioning heating and cooling systems. To compound these
problems, one-fourth of our schools are overcrowded from trying to cram
today's student population into yesterday's classrooms.
The needs of our public schools do not stop with buildings. In
today's world, technology is a vital component to a quality education.
In classrooms across the world, interactive whiteboards make learning
come alive and computers connect what our children learn in history
class to what is going on the world today. This technology sparks their
interest; it transforms math from mere numbers into exciting, future-
driving fields like architecture and engineering.
These technological capabilities exist, but only for a fortunate
minority. U.S. schools average one computer for every four students.
While some schools are fully equipped with computer and Internet
access, many fall far below that average. My own state of Kentucky has
made significant improvements in this area in the past few years. We
are now among those leading the nation in Internet access with 100% of
our schools linked to high-speed broadband connection. But what good is
Internet access without computers? Even in Kentucky, where the state
average is fewer than four students per computer, there are still
numerous schools where as many as 15 to 20 children must share one
computer. Schools like this can be found in every state. Given the
conditions of our children's learning environments, it is no surprise
that our students are struggling to compete in this ever-globalizing
world.
Our federal government has an important role to play in preventing
our children from falling behind. While our public school system is
administered by the states, the education of our children is a national
priority. Our federal government has validated this numerous times in
the past decade through the creation of programs like No Child Left
Behind, Head Start, and the Federal School Lunch Program. While
Congress has recognized that educational excellence is vital to the
economy and national competitiveness, too often we have failed to
provide these programs with the funding necessary to make these goals a
reality.
I believe it is time that Congress invests in our school
infrastructure. That is why I have introduced H.R. 3021, the 21st
Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill invests
in matching grants and low-interest loans to schools for construction,
repair and modernization of school buildings and educational
technology. This bill also provides funds for teacher technology
training, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and energy-
efficient facilities--all of which are vital to our kids' educational
environment.
Each passing year, it is more costly for states to provide schools
with the money they need to make basic, essential improvements. With
rising gas prices and a slowing economy, states need our help. This is
why the federal government must act now.
We must provide our children with safe, modern buildings in which
to learn. We must provide our children with computers. We must provide
them with cutting-edge facilities and technology so they can create the
machines and ideas of tomorrow--we must equip them to build the future
of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today as you address this important matter.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. And thank you very much for
taking your time.
And I want to say to all the panelists, I know that many of
you have other committees that are meeting that you serve on.
You are free to stay, or if you want to leave after your
testimony, you can do that also.
But again, I want to thank you very much in advance for the
attention that you have given to this question of school
facilities and how we provide for them and for the legislation
that you have all introduced.
Mr. Castle?
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Keller. I am also pleased to be here.
And I suppose I approach all this with a little bit greater
reservations than some of the other witnesses we are going to
hear from today. I think we can all agree that one of the
greatest challenges the nation faces is ensuring every child
receives the academic means they need to succeed in the future,
which includes in a physical environment which is conducive to
doing so.
I think that today's hearing on modern public school
facilities is vitally important. And I think that we do need to
pay some attention to this. But I have other concerns about
where we are going in education as well.
And I would suggest that before the committee enacts
legislation calling for new federal spending for school
construction projects it is necessary to consider a number of
factors. It is important to understand the need for federal
school construction funding. The federal government has had, as
all of us know, almost a nonexistent role in financing school
construction projects. Just in a few isolated-type incidents do
we do that.
Historically, the primary responsibility for school
construction has been at state and local levels, which have
spent over $145 billion in just the last 7 years, according to
construction industry reports. It is also important to
understand the cost implications of federal funding for school
construction.
Both the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S.
Government Accountability Office have attempted to project the
needs and costs of construction on the state and local levels.
According to a recently published U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics, known as
NCES, the unmet need for school construction renovation is
estimated at $112 billion.
I would surmise that the federal government gets involved
in school construction projects that number of projects will
increase, the costs will increase, and as a result, the need
for funding will continue to grow. It is just sort of natural
in terms of potential funding which could be there.
Our decisions must be based on existing commitments and
greatest needs such as assisting school districts and schools
in meeting federally imposed mandates, including funding for
Title 1, fully funding IDEA, and meeting other requirements
imposed by the EPA as well as others. And I am one Republican
who has fought for this funding for a number of years now. And
I believe that we still have that commitment, and we still
don't fund.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have heard you start a lot of your
opening statements with we haven't funded this sufficiently. I
have heard a lot of that discussion this year. And I think
there is a lot of truth to that, and it is something that we
have to pay attention to. So my question is can we afford this?
If we are not adequately funding the programs which we have
already assumed the responsibility for, can we assume a new
responsibility of school construction funding? As we work to
provide our students with the best possible education and
provide them with the tools to succeed, we must scrutinize
whether the federal government can commit to entering yet
another funding stream.
And I must admit that sometimes you are affected by your
own circumstances. But I went to Georgetown Law School over
here, not the fancy one that exists now about half a mile from
here, but one that was in an old red factory building. And I
drove around it three times trying to figure out where the heck
the school was and finally wandered into it and realized it was
in this ramshackle old building and had a wonderful education
because of really good professors who really understood what
they were doing.
There is a little more to education than just the building.
And I am in agreement that the building is important. But I
think we, particularly this committee, really needs to think
carefully about the choices that we are making.
Are we going to fund those things we have already agreed to
fund, which we are not doing--which we, the Congress, is not
doing perhaps to the extent that it should? Or are we going to
enter into a whole new funding stream, which is going to be
extremely expensive?
So I am not saying no to anything at this point. But I am
saying we do need to be very cautious in terms of how we
approach this and very considerate of other obligations that we
have. And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Castle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Delaware
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Miller, for holding today's
hearing. As the Senior Republican Member of the subcommittee that
oversees K-12 legislation, I welcome the opportunity to testify before
you today and look forward to hearing from my colleagues as well as the
other witnesses on this important issue--modern public school
facilities, particularly, the adequacy of existing public school
facilities and whether there is a need for a federal school
construction program.
I think we can all agree that one of the greatest challenges this
nation faces is ensuring every child receives the academic means they
need to succeed in the future, which includes learning in a physical
environment which is conducive to doing so.
Before this Committee enacts legislation calling for new federal
spending for school construction projects, however, it is necessary for
Congress to consider a number of factors.
First, it is important that we understand the need for federal
funding for school construction projects. Over the past decade, the
condition of local public school facilities has become an important
component of the education debate in communities throughout the nation.
How much should be spent on school construction in urban, rural and
suburban areas, along with how to modernize and renovate existing
public elementary and secondary schools have become significant issues
for many states and local school districts.
In general, the federal government has had an extremely limited, in
fact, almost non-existent role in financing school construction
projects. Historically, the primary responsibility for school
construction has been at the state and local levels which have spent
more than $145 billion in just the last seven years according to
reports from the construction industry.
The education needs in our country are great, and many areas face
major challenges with overcrowding and dilapidated space. In fact, we
face similar challenges in several areas of education such as teacher
shortages, teacher quality, educating those with disabilities,
achievement gaps and the list goes on.
Additionally, it is important to understand the cost implications
of federal funding for school construction. Both the U.S. Department of
Education and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have attempted
to project the needs and costs of construction on the state and local
levels based on self-reporting by school superintendents and other
school officials. The results have been astounding.
According to a report recently released by the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) entitled
Public School Principals Report on Their School Facilities: Fall 2005,
the unmet need for school construction and renovation is estimated at
$112 billion and three-quarters of the nation's schools report needing
funds to bring their buildings into a ``good overall condition.'' It is
also estimated that States and localities need $11 billion to simply
comply with Federal mandates to remove or correct hazardous substances
such as asbestos, lead paint, and radon.
As we balance the current obligations of the federal government in
educating our youth, our decisions must be based on existing
commitments and greatest needs. While school construction is a factor,
the federal government must continue to assist local schools and school
districts in meeting the federally-imposed mandates, such as adequate
funding for Title I, fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities
Act, assisting with compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and meeting various other requirements imposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
From my perspective, these are the needs which compel us, on the
federal, level, to provide funding to the programs which directly help
improve student achievement and close the achievement gaps that have
persisted for decades between disadvantaged students and their more
affluent peers.
We face challenges at every corner as we work to provide our
students with the best possible education and provide them with the
necessary tools to succeed. I hope we can continue to work together to
balance these needs and make decisions based on our current commitments
and greatest needs.
______
Chairman Miller. As always, a well-reasoned argument. That
is our business, making those choices and trying to develop
those partnerships.
Mr. Etheridge, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB ETHERIDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning.
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, who was here just a
moment ago, and other members of the committee, I am honored to
be here today. And I thank you for this hearing.
I think this is critically important to the competitiveness
of our country. And I appreciate the opportunity to present my
perspective on this vitally important issue.
Prior to my service in the United States House, I had the
privilege of serving 8 years as the elected state
superintendent of schools in North Carolina. And I have the
distinction, I guess, of having some perspective that others
might not have. So I have that rare firsthand knowledge of how
important a quality building is to the educational goals that
we hold for our schools and the challenges that these schools
face in inadequate facilities.
There really is no substitute for bricks and mortar when it
comes to quality schools. Now, let me just give you a
perspective. Across my district, school officials are striving
to provide first-class educational opportunities with
infrastructure that has not kept up with the times. And it is
not really their fault, so let me give you some examples.
Simply put, our schools are bursting at the seams.
Principals and teachers are waging a daily struggle to educate
our children in overcrowded classrooms, converted restrooms,
broom closets, and temporary trailers. For example, Harnett
County, which is just a few miles from my hometown of
Lillington, deals with this problem every day.
Harnett Central has earned a record of high standards and
outstanding achievement despite the fact that they have
overcrowding problems. Principal Ken Jernigan and his staff
work miracles with these young people with a main building
originally designed for 960 people. They now enroll 1,392
students and have 275 faculty and staff. They have been forced
to deploy 22 trailers, which creates safety problems, security,
and supervisor issues.
Approximately 33 buses unload between 7:15 and 7:45 each
morning. That leaves less than 1 minute for each bus to unload
and move, if you use those numbers accordingly.
These overcrowding problems are not unique to Harnett
Central. According to the 2005 public school facility needs
assessment by the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, Harnett County needs $222 million over the next 5
years for school construction, modernization, and renovations.
Nearby Johnston County, my home county where I grew up,
needs $221 million. Wake County, the capital county of North
Carolina, needs $1.4 billion to provide quality facilities for
our children. And those are just three counties in my district.
And, Mr. Chairman, one would hear those numbers and think
they are standing still. These counties are passing bond
issues. They are borrowing money. And they have just about
reached their limits.
Across North Carolina local communities are crying out for
help with school construction. During my final year as state
superintendent, we passed a $1.8 billion statewide bond issue
that was matched by the locals. That was the largest bond issue
at that time ever passed in North Carolina for school
construction.
But even after the historic investment, the more recent
assessment documented that we have $9.8 billion in unmet school
construction needs just in North Carolina. It is plain as day
that the state lacks the capacity to deal with this issue, and
we need national attention.
My state is not alone. The National Clearinghouse for
Education Facilities has estimated in 1998 that the average
public school building in the United States was 42 years old at
that time, and obviously they have gotten older. The National
Education Association 2000 report, Modernizing our Schools,
estimates total school facility needs nationwide to be $300
billion. Part of the problem we have had grappling with this
problem from the federal level is a lack of reliable numbers in
real time.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the Education and Labor
Committee request an updated report from the Government
Accountability Office to provide a comprehensive assessment of
this problem so that we will have in real time good numbers. I
have been working now for nearly 10 years to pass the school
construction legislation. It is one of the first bills I
introduced in my freshman term.
This Congress I have teamed up with my colleague, Chairman
Charlie Rangel and Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad of the
Ways and Means Committee to introduce H.R. 2470, the America's
Better Classrooms Act. This creative bill enjoys the support of
217 co-sponsors in the U.S. House from both parties, including
many members of this committee.
H.R. 2470 will provide a federal tax credit to the holders
of local school construction bonds to leverage school
construction funding for some $25 billion across America. Local
communities are ready to take action to get these projects
rolling as soon as they get the word.
In North Carolina, as an example, officials estimate that
they can begin funding projects within 30 to 60 days. They have
them on the shelf ready to go with no money.
Other legislative programs and proposals under the
jurisdiction of this committee could authorize appropriations
through the Department of Education for school construction and
modernization. Whatever legislative vehicle is most possible,
the need for action of this Congress could not be more clear,
Mr. Chairman.
Some people are saying the quality of facilities doesn't
matter. Tell that to the chamber of commerce when they are
trying to recruit new businesses. Some people say that schools
can make do with what they have got. Tell that to the students
whose God-given abilities are never realized because his or her
schools are overcrowded and do not have the proper equipment so
that they can reach their individual needs and the teachers can
reach them at their level and measure and find their weaknesses
as students.
Some people say education is too expensive. Mr. Chairman, I
say it is a whole lot cheaper than the price of ignorance. In
the 21st century, America cannot afford to turn a blind eye of
indifference to the troubles of local schools. Whether we like
it or not, the global marketplace is a reality. And our
national competitiveness depends on effective federal/local
partnerships to make every school a worldclass learning
institution.
That effort begins with school construction. I commend this
committee for holding this hearing. And I hope the Congress
will pass meaningful school construction legislation in 2008
that the president of the United States will sign into law.
Mr. Chairman, I brought with me a single red brick to
symbolize that our communities need help from this Congress.
Bricks symbolize schools, the building block of our future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress
From the State of North Carolina
Good morning, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, and
members of this committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to present my unique perspective
on this vitally important issue.
Prior to my service in the U.S. House, I served eight years as the
elected Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools. In fact, I
have the distinction of being the only former state schools' chief
serving in Congress, so I have rare firsthand knowledge of the
importance of quality school buildings to the educational goals we hold
for our schools, and the challenges those schools face in inadequate
facilities. There really is no substitute for bricks and mortar when it
comes to quality schools.
But across my District, school officials are striving to provide
first class educational opportunities with infrastructure that has not
kept up with the times. Simply put, our schools are busting at the
seams. Principals and teachers wage a daily struggle to educate our
children in overcrowded classrooms, converted restrooms and broom
closets and ``temporary'' trailers.
For example, Harnett Central High School, up the road from my home
in Lillington, deals with these problems every day. Harnett Central has
earned a record of high standards and outstanding academics despite
severe overcrowding problems. Principal Ken Jernigan and his staff work
miracles with these young people with a main building originally
designed for 960 people now enrolling 1,395 students and 275 faculty
and staff. They have been forced to deploy 22 trailers which create
serious safety, security and supervision issues. Approximately 33 buses
unload between 7:15 and 7:45 each morning. That leaves less than one
minute on the average to unload.
These overcrowding problems are not unique to Harnett Central.
According to the 2005-06 Public Schools Facility Needs Assessment by
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Harnett County
needs $222 million over the next five years for school construction,
renovation and modernization. Nearby Johnston County, where I grew up,
needs another $221 million. And Wake County needs $1.4+ Billion to
provide quality facilities for our children. And those are just three
of the counties in my district.
Across North Carolina, local communities are crying out for help
with school construction. During my final year as Superintendent, we
passed a $1.8 billion state bond issue that was at the time the largest
bond referendum in state history. But even after that historic
investment, the most recent Assessment documented that we have $9.8
billion in unmet school construction needs in my state. It is plain as
day that the states lack the capacity to deal with this issue. We need
national leadership.
My state is not alone. The National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities estimated in 1998 that the average public school building in
the United States was 42 years old. The National Education
Association's 2000 Report: Modernizing Our Schools estimated total
school facility need nationwide to be $300 billion. Part of the problem
we have had grappling with this problem from the federal level is a
lack of reliable numbers in real time. I recommend the Education and
Labor Committee request an updated report from the Government
Accounting Office to provide a comprehensive assessment of this
problem.
I have been working for nearly ten years to pass school
construction legislation. It was one of the first bills I introduced in
my freshman term. This Congress, I have teamed up with Democratic
Chairman Charles Rangel and Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad of the
Ways and Means Committee to introduce H.R. 2470, the America's Better
Classrooms Act. This creative bill enjoys the support of 217 cosponsors
in the U.S. House from both parties, including many members of this
committee.
H.R. 2470 will provide a federal tax credit to the holders of local
school construction bonds to leverage school construction funding of
some $25 billion across the country. Local communities are ready to
take action to get these projects rolling as soon as they get the word.
In North Carolina, officials estimate, they can begin funding projects
within 30-60 days. Other legislative proposals under the jurisdiction
of this committee could authorize appropriations through the Department
of Education for school construction and modernization. Whatever
legislative vehicle is most possible, the need for action by this
Congress could not be more clear.
Some people say the quality of the facilities doesn't matter. Tell
that to the chamber of commerce when they're trying to recruit new
business. Some people say that schools can make do with what they've
got. Tell that to the student whose God-given abilities are never
realized because his or her schools are so overcrowded he or she never
got the individual attention she needed to identify her strengths and
weaknesses and nurture her development. Some people say education is
too expensive. I say it's a whole lot cheaper than the price of
ignorance. In the 21st century, America cannot afford to turn the blind
eye of indifference to the struggles of local schools. Whether we like
it or not, the global marketplace is reality. Our national
competitiveness depends on effective federal/local/partnerships to make
every school a world class learning institution.
That effort begins with school construction. I commend this
committee for holding this hearing, and I hope the Congress will pass
meaningful school construction legislation in 2008 that the President
will sign into law.
I have with me a single red brick that I brought with me to
symbolize what our communities need from this Congress. Our communities
need as many school bricks as we can get to them. I stand ready to help
this committee and this Congress achieve that task.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. Thank you again for
the legislation you introduced.
I am going to run through here. I will stay as long as you
all are prepared to stay.
So, Dave, we are going to begin with you. To the extent you
can compress your testimony that would be appreciated by the
people at the end of the table. Welcome. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE LOEBSACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Loebsack. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member McKeon, who, as Mr. Etheridge said, was here
earlier, and my fellow education and labor colleagues. It is
truly an honor to sit on the other side of the dais today to
testify on an issue of great importance to our nation's
children, families, and communities. I am pleased to share this
panel with so many of my colleagues today, especially given
that I have only been in the Congress a little over a year.
And Mr. Etheridge, of course, is the only former state
superintendent serving in Congress, so I know he understands
these issues quite well, as his testimony just demonstrated. I
know that our country's students deserve better. They deserve
to learn in safe environments where they can grow and thrive.
Unfortunately, our public school facilities are not always
safe. And more often than not, they are in disrepair.
Problems vary region by region, state by state, and even
district by district. In the 2nd District of Iowa, which I
represent, 41 out of 65 school districts are rural. And rural
education school facilities are of particular concern to me.
According to a recent report by the Rural School and
Community Trust, enrollment in rural schools increased by 15
percent compared to a growth of 1 percent for all public
schools nationally. Unfortunately, while enrollment has
increased, high need and rural local educational agencies, or
LEAs, face significant resource shortages.
The tremendous growth in school construction over the past
decade is heartening. However, the per student investments made
in affluent districts far surpass those made in the most
disadvantaged districts.
That is why I have introduced the Public School Repair and
Renovation Act of 2007, the House version of a bill introduced
by Senator Harkin of the same title. I want to thank my
colleagues on this committee, Congressman Hare and Congressman
Sarbanes, for their support and co-sponsorship of this
legislation. The legislation would take much needed steps
toward ending the inequality of funding for schools.
The bill provides a total of $1.6 billion in funding to all
states through a formula based on most recent Title 1
allocations. The grants are then awarded on a competitive basis
to districts that are struggling the most.
States also have the discretion to require matching funds,
increasing the potential for more than just the federal
investment. Finally, the bill requires the GAO to report on
school facility spending and provide the first estimate since
1995 for the costs needed to bring all schools up to a good
overall condition.
As districts plan for the modernization of school
facilities, I am hopeful that they will look closely at the
health needs of students, teachers, and administrators. A large
and growing body of research demonstrates that green school
technology can lead to increased health, learning ability, and
productivity. This includes improved test scores, attendance,
teacher retention, and satisfaction.
As we begin to connect the dots between the environment, a
student's learning ability, and the health of both students and
faculty, we must once again direct our attention towards the
schools that are least able to afford improvements. Yesterday I
introduced the GREEN School Improvement Act to address these
issues. I want to thank Congressman Hare, Congresswoman Hooley,
and Congressman Payne for co-sponsoring this legislation.
This bill has three objectives. First, it will help
leverage local funds to make greatly needed green improvements,
renovations, and repairs in high-need and rural schools while
ensuring support for local businesses, stimulation of local
economies, and creation of local jobs. The bill also provides
grants to states that have a significant number of high-need
and rural LEAs to develop guidelines, standards, and best
practices for future improvements.
Lastly, the bill will charge the GAO to conduct a study to
examine the potential to meet school repair and renovation
needs with energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
environmental health improvements.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on the
importance of federal support for school modernization. I hope
the committee will continue to examine this issue very closely.
And I look forward to working with all of you on both my
legislation and the proposals of my friends and colleagues who
share the panel with me today.
The bottom line is that there is a need, and students
deserve better. And we can and should do more to leverage local
funds to fix America's crumbling school infrastructure.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to submit for the
record letters of support from Iowa Governor Chet Culver and
the U.S. Green Building Council.
Chairman Miller. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
------
February 12, 2008.
Hon. Dave Loebsack,
U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Loebsack: I write on behalf of the U.S. Green
Building Council, a nonprofit organization composed of leaders from
every sector of the building industry. USGBC's core purpose is to
transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and
operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy
and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life.
We are pleased to express our strong support for your Grants for
Renewable and Energy Efficiency Needs (GREEN) for School Improvements
Act. Improving our nation's school facilities is a vitally important
objective, and your bill takes America one step closer to achieving
this goal.
One American in five attends school every day. More than a quarter
of these students and teachers attend schools that are considered
substandard or dangerous to occupant health. The funding your bill
authorizes will provide critical support to aid in the rehabilitation
of our nation's existing school facilities, encouraging improvements
that maximize taxpayer dollars, nurture student health and performance,
decrease demand on municipal infrastructure, protect our environment
and put money back into the classrooms.
By their very nature, schools are an investment in the future,
preparing the next generation of leaders and paving the way for
tomorrow's innovations. Because schools embody our hopes and
aspirations for the future, we make an important statement about our
dedication to that future by building, repairing and operating schools
in the most responsible and sustainable ways possible.
The U.S. Green Building Council commends your leadership and hard
work on this issue and urges all members to vote in favor of the GREEN
for School Improvements Act.
Sincerely,
S. Richard Fedrizzi, President, CEO and Founding Chairman,
U.S. Green Building Council.
______
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Loebsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Loebsack, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Iowa
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McKeon, and my fellow
Education and Labor colleagues. It's an honor to sit on the other side
of the dais today to testify on an issue of great importance to our
nation's children, families, and communities. I'm pleased to share this
panel with so many of my colleagues today. Mr. Etheridge is the only
former state schools chief serving in Congress so I know he understands
these issues well. I know that our country's students deserve better.
They deserve to learn in safe environments where they can grow and
thrive.
Unfortunately, our public school facilities are not always safe and
more often than not, they are in disrepair. The US Department of
Education documented in 1998 that the average age of public school
buildings is 42 years. At 42, it's reasonable to expect that a school
facility, subject to daily wear-and-tear, will begin to deteriorate. In
older buildings, we've seen problems with lead paint, and asbestos.
We've also seen somewhat newer buildings experiencing problems with
mold, and poor indoor air quality.\1\ These examples are just the tip
of the iceberg. Problems vary region by region, state by state, and
even district by district.
In Iowa, 46 percent of schools are in rural areas. These schools
serve close to 170,000 students. In the 2nd District of Iowa, which I
represent, 41 out of 65 school districts are rural, and rural education
and school facilities are of particular concern to me. According to a
recent report by The Rural School and Community Trust, between the
2002-2003 and the 2004-2005 school year, enrollment in rural schools
increased by 15 percent compared to a growth of 1 percent for all
public schools nationally. In 2006, there were almost 10 million
students attending schools in rural areas.\2\ Unfortunately, while
enrollment has increased, high need and rural Local Education Agencies
face significant resource shortages. These schools can least afford to
make the needed repairs and renovations to ensure that students attend
have an environment where they are safe, and able to excel in their
studies.
Despite growing need, federal funding has been largely unavailable
to leverage local spending. In Fiscal Year 2001, Senator Harkin
successfully worked to secure $1.2 billion for public school repair and
renovation. This funding had a dramatic effect on schools across the
country. However, it happened only once, and was not enough to cover
the extensive repair and renovation needs across the country.
The tremendous growth in school construction over the past decade
is heartening, however not all of the investments have been equal.
According to a 2006 report by the BEST coalition, the per-student
investment made in the most affluent school districts to repair or
construct schools, was nearly double the amount of the per-student
investment, made in the most disadvantaged school districts. The BEST
report also found that students in school districts with predominantly
White enrollment benefitted from about $2,000 more per student, in
school repair and construction spending, than their peers living in
schools districts with predominantly minority enrollment.\3\
We are lucky in Iowa. Since 1998, Senator Harkin has secured $116
million for the ``Harkin Grant'' program which has helped over 260
school districts across Iowa. Dr. Paula Vincent, the Superintendent for
the Clear Creek Amana School District in Iowa, will elaborate on the
benefits of these grants later in the hearing, but I do want to point
out that these grants are a perfect example of how modest federal
investments can significantly improve and modernize school facilities.
They are also a perfect example of how modest federal investments can
leverage significant state resources. Since 1998, these grants have
leveraged $900 million in construction funding.
Unfortunately, not all states have these programs, and many
schools, especially those in rural and high need areas, will suffer.
That is why I have introduced the Public School Repair and Renovation
Act of 2007, the House version of a bill by Senator Harkin, of the same
title. I want to thank my colleagues on this committee, Congressman
Hare and Congressman Sarbanes, for their support and co-sponsorship of
this legislation.
This legislation will take much needed steps toward ending the
inequality of funding for schools. The bill provides a total of $1.6
billion in funding to all states through a formula, based on their most
recent Title I allocations, which means that states receive funds based
on the number of poor children they serve. The grants are then awarded
on a competitive basis to districts and schools that are struggling the
most, those in rural and high need areas. States also have the
discretion to require matching funds from the local districts
increasing the potential for more than just the federal investment.
Finally, the bill requires GAO to report on school facility
spending and provide the first estimate since 1995 for the costs needed
to bring all schools to a good overall condition.
As districts plan for the modernization of school facilities, I am
hopeful they will look closely at the health needs of students,
teachers, and administrators. According to the GAO, almost two-thirds
of schools have building features, such as air conditioning, that are
in need of extensive repair or replacement leading to air that is unfit
to breathe in nearly 15 thousand schools.\4\
Air quality is increasingly important when we consider the growing
trend in which students and faculty spend 85 to 90 percent of their
time indoors. The concentration of pollutants indoors is typically
higher than outdoors, in some cases by as much as 100 times.\5\ The
significant concentration of pollutants can agitate and increase the
likelihood of health problems.
A large and growing body of research demonstrates that green school
technology can lead to increased health, learning ability, and
productivity. This includes improved test scores, attendance, teacher
retention, and satisfaction.
Putting green technology into schools can greatly reduce harmful
emissions, lower energy costs, and have an extremely positive impact on
our local economies. The average energy savings of a green school over
a conventional school is around 33 percent, and the water savings is
around 32 percent. In total, the financial savings is estimated at $70
per square foot, with a $12 per square foot savings going directly to
schools.\6\
As we begin to connect the dots between the environment, a
student's learning ability, and the health and well-being of both
students and faculty, we must once again direct our attention towards
the schools that are least able to afford improvements to their
facilities. Yesterday, I introduced the GREEN Schools Improvement Act
to address these issues. Like the Public School Repair and Renovation
Act, funds are distributed to all states, and grants are then targeted
to high need and rural Local Education Agencies.
This bill has three objectives. It will help leverage local funds
to make greatly needed green improvements, renovations, and repairs
while ensuring support for local businesses, stimulation of local
economies, and creation of local jobs.
The bill also provides grants to States that have a significant
number of high need and rural local education agencies to develop
guidelines, standards, and best practices for future energy
improvements. The guidelines and standards will again, ensure support
for local businesses and resources.
Lastly the bill, similar to the Public School Repair and Renovation
Act, will charge the Government Accountability Office with performing a
study on the current state of public school needs for repair and
renovations. It will also examine the potential to meet this need with
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and environmental health
improvements.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on the importance of
federal support for school modernization. I hope that the Committee
will continue to examine this issue very closely, and I look forward to
working with you on both my legislation, and on the proposals of my
friends and colleagues who share the panel with me today. The bottom
line is that there is a need; students deserve better; and we can and
should do more to leverage local funds to fix America's crumbling
school infrastructure.
endnotes
\1\ Building Educational Success Together (BEST). Growth and
Disparity: A decade of U.S. Public School Construction. October 2006
\2\ Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program. Why Rural
Matters 2007: The Realities of Rural Education Growth. October 2007
\3\ Building Educational Success Together (BEST). Growth and
Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction. October 2006
\4\ Gregory Kats ``Greening America's Schools,'' October 2006.
Government Accountability Office Report # HEHS-95-95.
\5\ US Environmental Protection Agency, ``Indoor Air Quality,''
January 6, 2003.
\6\ Gregory Kats, ``Greening America's Schools,'' October 2006.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Etheridge?
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the
record about 25 national associations in support of H.R. 2470.
Chairman Miller. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Supporters of America's Better Classroom Act of 2007
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Institute of Architects
Association of School Business Officials International
Buildings and Trades Department (BCTD), AFL-CIO
California Department of Education
Californians for School Facilities
Council of the Great City Schools
International Union of Bricklayers
International Union of Operating Engineers
Laborers' International Union
Mason Contractors Association of America
National Alliance of Black School Educators
NAACP
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
National Parent Teacher Association
National Rural Education Association
National School Boards Association
Organizations Concerned About Rural Education
Project GRAD USA
The National Construction Alliance
United Brotherhood of Carpenters
______
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Boustany?
Thank you very much for your testimony. I know we have a
vote on, so we are racing the clock here.
Yes, Dr. Boustany?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Boustany. Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman
Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and fellow members of the
committee for allowing me to testify on this very important
issue. We all agree that modern public school buildings are
important. We also know that building a modern classroom is a
very expensive endeavor.
In any discussion of school construction costs, I think we
need to carefully examine one federal mandate that makes
already expensive projects even more expensive for a local
community. That is the requirement that construction projects
be done using prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. I am
hopeful that the committee will focus on the critical
shortcomings in the way those Davis-Bacon wages are calculated
before forcing local school districts to divert scarce funds
away from teachers and students.
Research makes it hard to doubt that the Davis-Bacon Act
prevailing wages would inflate the cost of building our
children's schools and threaten salaries for teachers, end
class dollars for technology, textbooks, and supplies. For
example, a number of studies have found that projects completed
under Davis-Bacon are 20 percent more expensive than similar
projects completed under market conditions.
The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the
Davis-Bacon Act would cost taxpayers approximately an
additional $10 billion over the 2002 through 2011 period if it
were applied. A 2007 study from Michigan's nonprofit Mackinac
Center found that exempting public school districts from the
state's government-set wage scheme would reap an expected
annual savings of approximately $125 million. And a 2002 study
from researchers working for the Ohio legislature determined
that rescinding prevailing wage requirements for school
construction saved $487.9 million in aggregate school
construction during the post-examination period, an overall
savings of 10.7 percent.
These are just a few examples of studies documenting the
savings that can be achieved by not requiring this federal
mandate. Last year I met with Bob Manuel, a local police juror
from Evangeline Parish in Louisiana. And Bob has worked as an
electrical contractor for 32 years and served as president of
the Louisiana Police Jury Association.
He estimated that Davis-Bacon mandates added a 20 to 25
percent cost increase for sewer treatment facility projects in
Evangeline Parish. Costly Washington mandates should not
penalize small, disadvantaged communities that have struggled
to rebuild after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
Finally, our committee will be negligent if we overlook the
numerous problems with Davis-Bacon wage calculations in the
first place. In 2004, the Department of Labor's Office of
Inspector General reported that inaccurate survey data,
potential bias, and untimely decisions are continuing concerns.
The OIG added that these problems affect the validity and
usefulness of Davis-Bacon wage surveys.
I would like to submit a copy of this report for the record
I have here. And I challenge anyone on this committee to argue
that Davis-Bacon wage surveys are scientific surveys that need
no improvement.
[Internet address to Department of Labor report, submitted
by Dr. Boustany, follows:]
http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-DoL.pdf
______
Dr. Boustany. The Office of Management and Budget has
reported that Davis-Bacon's flawed wage determinations may
contravene the intent of the act not to undermine local wage
and benefit standards. Some, including Department of Labor's
OIG, have suggested there is a better way, the statistically
superior wager determination process used by the Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Researchers at Suffolk University compared the current wage
and hour divisions Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determinations
and those from BLS and found that the current method inflates
wages by 22 percent on average costing taxpayers $8.6 billion
each year. But they found something else.
Many construction employees are actually underpaid using
the flawed determination method instead of superior BLS
figures. Employees in Florida, North Carolina, Michigan,
Virginia, and Maine were some of those Americans who got
cheated by the current system's shortcomings.
Continuing to use the current Davis-Bacon wage
determination method would lead to a troubling situation in
which we lose just by playing. Either taxpayers get overcharged
by the system, or construction employees are underpaid. We
wouldn't teach that kind of fuzzy math in school buildings, and
we shouldn't practice it when building schools.
I urge the committee members to fix Davis-Bacon before
imposing it on future school construction projects. And I thank
the committee and look forward to working with the committee on
this issue.
[The statement of Dr. Boustany follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles W. Boustany, Jr., M.D., a
Representative in Congress From the State of Louisiana
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for allowing me to speak on this important issue.
We all agree that modern public school buildings are important. We also
know that building a modern classroom is an expensive endeavor.
In any discussion of school construction costs, I think we need to
carefully examine one federal mandate that makes already expensive
projects even more expensive for a local community: that is the
requirement that construction projects be done using ``prevailing
wages'' under the Davis-Bacon Act.
I'm hopeful that the committee will focus on the critical
shortcomings in the way those Davis-Bacon wages are calculated before
forcing local school districts to divert scarce funds away from
teachers and students.
Research makes it hard to doubt that Davis-Bacon Act ``prevailing
wages'' would inflate the costs of building our children's schools and
threaten salaries for teachers and in-class dollars for technology,
textbooks, and supplies.
For example, a number of studies have found that projects completed
under Davis Bacon are 20 percent more expensive than similar projects
completed under market conditions. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) also estimates that the Davis-Bacon Act would cost taxpayers
approximately an additional $10 billion over the 2002 to 2011 period if
it were applied.
A 2007 study from Michigan's non-profit Mackinac Center found that
exempting public school districts from the state's government-set wage
scheme would reap an expected annual savings of approximately $125
million. And a 2002 study from researchers working for the Ohio
Legislature determined that rescinding prevailing wage requirements for
school construction saved $487.9 million in aggregate school
construction during the post-examination period, an overall savings of
10.7 percent.
These are but a few examples of studies documenting the savings
that can be achieved by not requiring this federal mandate.
Last year, I met with Bob Manuel, a Police Juror from Evangeline
Parish, Louisiana. Bob has worked as an electrical contractor for 32
years and served as President of Louisiana's Police Jury Association.
He estimated that Davis-Bacon mandates added 20 to 25 percent to the
cost of a sewer treatment facility project in Evangeline Parish. Costly
Washington mandates shouldn't penalize small disadvantaged communities
that have struggled to rebuild after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
Finally, our committee will be negligent if we overlook the
numerous problems with Davis-Bacon wage calculations in the first
place.
In 2004, the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General
reported that ``inaccurate survey data, potential bias, and untimely
decisions are continuing concerns.'' The OIG added that these problems
``affect the validity and usefulness of Davis-Bacon wage surveys.'' I'd
like to submit a copy of this report for the record. I challenge anyone
on this committee to argue that the Davis-Bacon wage surveys are
scientific surveys that need no improvements.
The Office of Management and Budget has reported that Davis-Bacon's
flawed wage determinations may ``[contravene] the intent of the act not
to undermine local wage and benefits standards.''
Some--including Department of Labor's OIG--have suggested there is
a better way: the statistically superior wage determination process
used by Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Researchers at Suffolk University compared the current Wage and
Hour Division's Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determinations and those
from BLS and found that the current method inflates wages by 22 percent
on average, costing taxpayers $8.6 billion each year.
But they found something else. Many construction employees are
actually underpaid using the flawed determination method instead of
superior BLS figures. Employees in Florida, North Carolina, Michigan,
Virginia, and Maine were some of those Americans who got cheated by the
current system's shortcomings.
Continuing to use the current Davis-Bacon wage determination method
would lead to a troubling situation in which we lose just by playing.
Either taxpayers get overcharged by the system, or construction
employees are underpaid. We wouldn't teach that kind of fuzzy math in
school buildings; we shouldn't practice it when building schools.
I again urge Committee Members to fix Davis-Bacon before imposing
it on future school construction projects. I thank the Committee and
look forward to any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Charles, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Dr. Boustany. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Hooley, Congresswoman Hooley?
Ms. Hooley. I will try to go fast.
Chairman Miller. Welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for allowing me to testify today on the topic of
green schools and the recent creation of the congressional
green schools caucus. I am here today on behalf of two of my
co-chairs, Congressman McCaul of Texas and Matheson of Utah and
over 25 members of the caucus.
Our vision is for this caucus to educate its members and
Congress at large on the many benefits of green schools and to
work to impact the role the federal government has in green
school construction and renovation. Across the country, the
green schools movement is growing, and our nation's students,
parents, and teachers are demanding change.
This is not surprising when one considers that 20 percent
of America goes to school every day. That is 55 million
students and more than 6 million faculty and staff.
Too many of our nation's schools are falling into disrepair
and are potentially dangerous for both students and faculty. I
remember visiting a couple schools in my district where there
were holes in the ceiling, water damage on the walls, and mold
around the windows. Green schools create a healthy environment
that is conducive to learning while saving energy, resources,
and money.
Let me repeat this important point. When done correctly,
green schools provide a healthy environment and save money.
Green schools have plenty of natural light, high-quality
acoustics, and air that is safe to breathe. According to
Capital E's Greening American Schools, which I would like to
include in the record, green schools save money on average
$100,000 a year. In school terms, that is enough to hire two
new teachers, buy 200 new computers or purchase 5,000 new
textbooks.
Greening all our schools would reduce CO2 emissions by 33.2
million metric tons while saving schools and universities $30
billion in energy costs over 10 years. Greening schools teaches
the next generation about sustainability and climate change
through their school experience.
An example of this is schools that have installed green
roofs that serve as a filter for storm water runoff while
providing a natural habitat for birds and butterflies and an
interactive learning environment for students. They also
dramatically improve the health and productivity of students
and teachers by reducing the incidence of asthma, colds, and
flu among children while improving students' learning and
performance by a documented seven to 18 percent, according to
the 1999 Heschong Mahone study.
I recently had a chance to visit Bush Elementary School in
Salem, Oregon, which has incorporated many green building
design features. The school is designed so its gym, cafeteria,
and stage can be closed off from the rest of the school
building when the space is being used for community events,
conserving both electricity and heat.
The school also uses only no VOC paint and carpet to
protect indoor air quality. The green building marketplace is
expected to be worth $60 billion by 2010, according to the
McGraw-Hill 2007 Green Building Smart Market Report on
education, which I would also like to include for the record.
This study predicts that green schools will make up more
than 27 percent of the commercial green building market. It is
clear to me this issue is so important it deserves a dedicated
group in Congress to promote and facilitate the adoption of
green schools across this country. One of the challenges to
green school growth is bringing other experts from many
disciplines together to give us a fuller picture about its
overall benefit compared to conventional construction.
With green schools popping up throughout the country we now
have the opportunity to quantify the benefits of green schools
as it relates to improved test scores, increased teacher
retention, decreased student absenteeism, and decreased
incidents of environment illness like allergies and asthma.
While research has been conducted, there is a gap in federally
supported research on the direct benefits for students.
That is why I along with Congressman Matheson and McCaul
introduced an amendment to the Energy Independence and Security
Act authorizing a study by EPA of how sustainable buildings
features affect student performance K-12. We established the
green schools caucus to continue this vital work.
Through briefings and school tours we can learn firsthand
what it means to go green and how these practices improve our
students' health and performance while saving money for local
government. I invite every member of this panel to join us on
this educational venture and to work with us to find
appropriate ways for the federal government to support
decisions by our local school administrators, parents,
teachers, and elected officials to green America's schools.
And thank you very much for allowing me to testify. And I
think I have to run to vote. So thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Darlene Hooley, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Oregon
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify before the
Education and Labor Committee on the topic of green schools and the
recent creation of the Congressional Green Schools Caucus.
I am here today on behalf of my two co-chairs, Congressmen McCaul
of Texas and Matheson of Utah and the over 20 members of the Caucus,
including Congressmen Loebsack, Chandler, and Holt, to discuss several
reasons we have joined together to form the Green Schools Caucus.
Our vision is for this Caucus to educate its members and the
Congress at large on the many benefits of Green Schools and work to
impact the role the Federal government has in green school construction
and renovation.
Across the country, the green schools movement is growing and our
nation's students, parents, and teachers are demanding change. This is
not surprising when one considers that 20% of America goes to school
every day. That is 55 million students and more than 6 million faculty
and staff.
Too many of our nation's schools are falling into disrepair and are
potentially dangerous for both students and faculty. I remember
visiting a school in my district a few years ago where there were holes
in the ceiling, water damage on the walls, and mold growing in the
corners.
Green schools create a healthy environment that is conducive to
learning while saving energy, resources, and money. Let me repeat this
important point: when done correctly, green schools provide a healthy
environment AND save money.
Green Schools have plenty of natural light, high quality acoustics,
and air that is safe to breathe. According to Capital E's Greening
America's Schools, which I would like to include in the record, green
schools save money--on average $100,000/year.
In school terms, that's enough to hire 2 new teachers, buy 200 new
computers, or purchase 5,000 new textbooks. Statistics and facts about
the benefits of green schools speak for themselves.
Greening our schools will reduce US CO2 emissions by 33.2 million
metric tons while saving schools and universities $30 billion in energy
costs over 10 years.
Greening schools teaches the next generation about sustainability
and climate change through their school experience.
An example of this are schools that have installed green roofs that
serve as a filter for storm water run-off while providing a natural
habitat for birds and butterflies and an interactive learning
environment for students.
They also dramatically improve the health and productivity of
students and teachers by reducing the incidence of asthma, colds, and
flu among children while improving student learning and performance by
a documented 7%--18% according to the 1999 Heschong Mahone study.
The green schools movement is taking off all across the country.
LEED for Schools, a market specific Rating System for construction and
major renovation of green schools, launched in April 2007. Since its
inception, an average of one new school per day has registered for
certification under LEED for Schools.
I recently had a chance to visit Bush Elementary School in Salem,
Oregon which has incorporated many green building design features. The
school was designed so that its gym, cafeteria and stage space can be
closed off from the rest of the school building when the space is being
used for community events, conserving both electricity and heat. The
school also uses only no-VOC paint and carpet to protect indoor air
quality.
The green building marketplace is expected to be worth $60 billion
by 2010 according to the McGraw Hill 2007 Green Building Smart Market
Report on Education, which I'd like to also include for the record.
This Study also predicts that green schools will make up more than 27%
of the commercial green building market.
School districts all over the country have made the commitment to
green their schools, saving money while promoting student health and
performance. The US Green Building Council has certified or registered
629 K-12 schools under the LEED rating system, spanning 47 States,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
It is clear to me that this issue is so important it deserves a
dedicated group in Congress to promote and facilitate the adoption of
green schools across the country. One of the challenges to green school
growth is bringing together experts from many disciplines to give us a
fuller picture about its overall benefit compared to conventional
construction.
With green schools popping up throughout the country, we now have
the opportunity to quantify the benefits of green schools as it relates
to improved test scores, increased teacher retention, decreased
absenteeism, and decreased incidence of environmental illnesses like
allergies and asthma.
While research has been conducted, there is a gap in federally
supported research on the direct benefits to students. That is why I,
along with Congressmen Matheson and McCaul, introduced an amendment to
the Energy Independence and Security Act authorizing a study by the EPA
of how sustainable building features affect student performance in K-12
schools.
We established the Green Schools Caucus to continue this vital
work. Through briefings and school tours, we can learn first hand what
it means to go green and how these practices improve our students'
health and performances while saving money for our local governments.
I invite every member of this panel to join us on this educational
venture and to work with us to find appropriate ways for the Federal
government to support decisions by our local school administrators,
parents, teachers, and elected officials to green America's schools.
______
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. And thank you for, by the
way, your great service to this Congress. I know you are
leaving here voluntarily. I hope this could be part of your
legacy here, just a great memory.
Ms. Hooley. Thanks.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
And I think what we will do until the other members get
back we will finish the panel members first. They should be
back momentarily. There is kind of a parliamentary struggle
going on in the Congress today. We used to do it, too, but now
we are in the majority. We don't like it when the minority does
it.
[Recess.]
Mr. Kildee. We will reconvene. And Mr. King from Iowa is
our next witness.
And welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
privilege to testify here today regarding the schools and the
funding. And I think, as you know, that I hope to focus my
testimony on Davis-Bacon wage scales and the effect of that on
the overall cost of our schools.
My background is in the construction business. I have been
in the industry since the early 1970s. I started a construction
business in 1975. We have dealt with Davis-Bacon wage scale. I
have done so as an employee and as an employer. And I have
dealt with it in a number of different environments.
So I think as a member of Congress my background on this is
as strong as anybody that is here. But the background on Davis-
Bacon wage scale--and to refresh the committee, that is a
requirement that prevailing wage as determined by the U.S.
Department of Labor be paid on any construction project that
has federal dollars, $2,000 or more in it. That would include
by this language of the bills that are before us any
reconstruction or any new construction of schools that have
federal bond dollars in them.
The history of Davis-Bacon goes back to 1931, the
Depression era, when the trade unions, the labor unions in the
Northeast, in particular, New York City, there was a large
project that was lost by a local contractor for a bidder out of
Alabama whose strategy it was to bring Black Americans from
Alabama to New York. And the process was to undercut the wages
of the trade unions in New York.
So the Davis-Bacon wage scale is rooted in one of the last
vestiges of Jim Crow law. And that seems to get lost in the
debate. But it was established to keep southern blacks out of
the trade unions in the North and particularly, the Northeast.
And it is defined as prevailing wage. Now, I get those
reports on prevailing wage, and I will tell you that union
contractors fill out prevailing wage. Nonunion contractors do
not fill out the voluntary forms to establish prevailing wage
because it is a red flag for the unions to come and organize
their company. So bright people that are surviving in that
environment are not in the business of putting up red flags to
ask the unions to come in and organize their operations.
The prevailing wage then becomes union scale. And the union
scale is also when the reports come in, you have federally
imposed wages defined as prevailing wage that actually are
union scale wages that then are incorporated into the next
study. So the study that I am about to ask if it can be
introduced into the record, the Beacon Hill study on Davis-
Bacon wage scale, this study reflects current situation of
wages.
The current situation of wages includes the imposed federal
wage scale that has already inflated the cost of labor and
still concludes that there is a 9.91 percent inflated value in
the cost of these construction projects for federal buildings
if you incorporate Davis-Bacon wage scales in it. And my own
studies and other studies draw that difference for Davis-Bacon
wage scales between a inflation value of 8 percent and 35
percent of the overall cost of the project.
I reduced it down to an average of 20 percent increase. And
that just simply says that if you want to impose Davis-Bacon
wage scales, ask the question. Do you want to build four
schools, or do you want to build five? I would rather build
five schools rather than four. And this keeps us from being
able to put our dollars in the best place.
The Beacon Hill study also sets labor cost appreciation by
Davis-Bacon at 22 percent increase. Well, that ought to tell
you it is not prevailing wage or you are not going to see any
difference in a financial study of whether there are dollars
that are appreciated because of the Davis-Bacon wage scale.
It is not prevailing wage, or that number wouldn't be a 22
percent appreciation. It would be zero. It would reflect the
prevailing wage. It does not.
I have worked under this for all of those years, for more
than three decades. And I have filled out the spreadsheets. I
pioneered the reporting of some of that because it takes a lot
of tracking of the employees.
The best way I can describe how it pits worker against
worker is it defines some of them as being more valuable than
others. It takes your laborer who is on the shovel and makes
him worth less than your man sitting on a finish machine.
And so, let us just say pick a couple of numbers from older
years. Maybe you are paying your laborer $10 an hour and you
are paying your equipment operator $25 an hour. Well, all of a
sudden everybody is an equipment operator and nobody is a
laborer.
Your finished motor grader operator then has an incentive
to roll quads rather than get off with the grease gun. It
prevents me as an employer from having as many employees as I
would have that are on year-round work because I can't afford
to pay those kind of wages year-round. I can't guarantee 40
hours a week or more because the wages are too high.
So I have to hire out of the union hall. I have to put an
employee on a machine, work him hard and push him hard to get
my money's worth out of that high wage I am paying and then
take him off that machine, send him home when I am not using
him for that specific purpose. I can't put those people on
payroll 12 months out of the year and pay them health
insurance, retirement benefits, and vacation pay at those kind
of wages if I am going to be competitive.
So this interferes and upsets the relationship between
employers and employees and it costs us schools, and it costs
us efficiency in construction. And it discourages entrepreneurs
to come into the construction business.
It is in every way an interference with the free market
system. Labor is a commodity like corn, beans or gold or oil,
and it should be established by the competition in the
workplace rather than by the federal government that has almost
universally gotten it wrong.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Iowa
Mr Chairman, I come today to discuss the ramifications of being
forced to pay Davis-Bacon mandated wages for construction or remodeling
of publicly funded schools. Davis-Bacon is the last Jim Crow law. It
was enacted in 1931 to protect the white northern workers from the
lower paid carpet-bagger workers that had come up from the Southern
states to look for work. Union workers were threatened by the sudden
influx of cheap labor. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed to
prevent them from working.
This Act has a checkered past. Davis-Bacon was a Depression-era
wage subsidy law, requiring that each public works contract over $2,000
contain a clause that established certain wages to be paid. This limit
has never been adjusted, not even for inflation. Contractors and
subcontractors must pay workers a wage based on the so-called
``prevailing wage.'' But that wage is not the market wage and it
artificially inflates wages and raises the cost of public construction
projects for taxpayers. Davis Bacon also takes work away from
competitive workers. And, having owned and operated a small
construction company for over 20 years, I have personal experience
being slighted in such a way.
A study was recently done by the Beacon Hill Institute on the
effects of paying Davis-Bacon inflated wages in public construction
projects. It found that when the Davis-Bacon mandated wages were
followed, labor costs rose by 22% above the reported median wage. I
would like to enter a copy of this fantastic study into the record.
In total, this study reports that Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers over
$8.6 billion annually. That is enough money to hire over 18,000
teachers.
I've used this education related example to illustrate the cost of
complying with Davis-Bacon because its mandated wages would apply to
some of the bills pending before this committee, namely those that deal
with school renovation and new construction. In the General Education
Provision Act, [20 USC 1232b] the law specifically states:
``All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on all construction and minor remodeling projects
assisted under any applicable program shall be paid wages at rates not
less than those prevailing on similar construction and minor remodeling
in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor.''
Thus the Davis-Bacon mandate would apply to any bill that receives
federal dollars for construction or renovation--even state projects
only partially funded by federal dollars. Therefore Davis-Bacon is the
federal government intruding in the affairs of the States as well.
Davis-Bacon provisions artificially inflate construction labor
costs. The Beacon-Hill study proves that. It states that by paying
Davis-Bacon artificially high wages labor costs go up 22% and overall
construction costs go up 9.91%. That is why I am here today, to urge
this committee to reject legislation that would force the Davis-Bacon
mandate on school construction and re-modeling.
The GAO is also on record stating that economic conditions and
labor provisions have changed significantly since the 1930's. It
reported that the Davis-Bacon Act is, ``not susceptible to practical
and effective administration'' by the Department of Labor. It further
stated that Davis-Bacon has resulted in unnecessary construction and
administration costs, inflated prices, and inaccurate wages.
Construction costs are rising, according to a recent study by Reed
Business information in October 2007. The 30-city construction cost
index showed roofing and siding costs are up 20.5%; pre-cast concrete
costs are up 14.4%; and structural and metal framing costs are up
10.5%. Take into account price increases for energy and you can see why
now we need to be smarter with our money.
Davis-Bacon is anti-competitive. Non-union construction companies,
like the one I started, are seriously hurt by Davis-Bacon provisions.
Small businesses simply can't compete because it is TOO INEXPENSIVE to
get a government contract. We cannot afford to use 70 year old
methodology anymore.
The remedy is simple: take out the provision of these bills that
artificially inflates or skews construction labor costs. The money
saved on labor can be used to build and remodel more and better
schools.
I ask you to reflect upon what this extra funding not spent on
Davis Bacon would mean to these kids, small business owners, or to the
taxpayers? We should spend money so much more wisely.
The Beacon-Hill Institute study points out that the costs of the
unfair Davis-Bacon mandate is almost 10% of the total construction cost
of a new school. In other words, we could save a million dollars off
the cost of a new ten million dollar school. With that savings we could
employ over 20 new teachers to the new school. We need to get our
priorities straight. The Beacon-Hill Institute study is a wake-up call
for this committee and this Congress. Congress should be working to
build as much square footage of good schools.
______
[Internet address to report, ``The Federal Davis-Bacon Act:
The Prevailing Mismeasure of Wages,'' submitted by Mr. King of
Iowa, follows:]
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/PrevWage08/
DavisBaconPrevWage080207Final.pdf
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Holt?
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McKeon. My
colleagues, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Hooley, and others have made, I
think, the strong point that environment and green building is
something that is good for the students. It really is an
educational matter, not just an energy matter.
Several years ago, 26 of us introduced the School Building
Enhancement Act after learning that energy costs were the
second highest operating expenditure in schools after personnel
costs. At the time, schools were paying about $6 billion
annually. That has now risen to about $8 billion annually.
And according to the EPA, 30 percent of the energy consumed
in school buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. So
let us just say you had an extra $2 billion in savings. That
could go for teachers, textbooks, any number of educational
things.
Our bill would assist schools in making improvements by
providing grants to states and school systems for energy
efficiency upgrades. These improvements would follow the
guidelines of the Energy Smart schools program with the
Department of Energy and the Energy Star school districts
program of the EPA.
There are plenty of examples where this works. Summerfield
Elementary School in my home state of New Jersey saved the
typical 30 percent, which means $41,000 annually in their
pockets for educational use.
And there are health and other direct educational benefits
as well. Daylighting, for example, can dramatically decrease
the use of energy in schools. And according to a study of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratories, students who learn in
daylit classrooms have five to 14 percent better test scores,
if you like test scores, than those who learn in non-daylit
schools. So there is a direct educational advantage.
So I encourage my colleagues here on the committee to join
with Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Hare,
Mr. Payne and others in supporting this. Furthermore, having
heard my colleagues talk about school construction from the
point of view of realistic wages, prevailing wages, I would be
remiss if I didn't say a word or two about Davis-Bacon.
And they are very--I must say with respect--their
shortsighted way of trying to save money by cutting the wages
of school construction workers. Yes, this goes back to the
Depression era. And I am proud to say that my father was very
much involved in establishing wage standards back then.
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage legislation has not only saved
taxpayers money, it has produced better work. And you get more
for your dollar.
You know, a dozen states at one time or another have
repealed their own prevailing wage laws. And the picture is not
pretty. Repeal in those states has resulted in lower wages, a
race to the bottom, fewer benefits for workers, reduction or
elimination of apprenticeship training.
Now, let me emphasize that. Through Davis-Bacon you get
better work. Apprenticeship programs work. You don't have to do
the job over again because you have skilled workers.
It declines the quality of the workforce. There were
increased injuries on the job and lower productivity. In other
words, less for the taxpayer dollar.
So, you know, my colleagues, Dr. Boustany, Mr. King want to
save taxpayer money. So do we. And it has been demonstrated.
And they will provide studies. I am happy to provide studies,
too, of what has happened in states where they have cut
prevailing wage. I am happy to provide studies, some of which
were done in my own congressional district that show that
Davis-Bacon is good.
And it is not about organizing, although, you know, union
organizing is not such a bad thing, Mr. King. But that is not
what it is about.
In fact, according to the Department of Labor, 72 percent
of the wage determinations--in other words, how they calculate
prevailing wage in the most recent determination that I could
find, which was a half dozen years ago--were based on nonunion
scales of labor. So, no, this is not--sure, unions like this.
But it is not primarily a union effort.
The union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor
determines that that is the prevailing wage in the region.
Again, I will emphasize productivity is improved when Davis-
Bacon is applied. And with that, I yield back my time. Thank
you.
[The statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rush D. Holt, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon, and members of
the Committee, for inviting me to speak today on The School Building
Enhancement Act (H.R. 3197). I am pleased that this legislation is
being considered as part of our discussion on investing in our public
school facilities.
As we on the committee know all too well, our nation's K-12 schools
face a number of challenges due to both increasing student populations
and increasing community expectations. However, schools are hampered
from being able to achieve needed improvements because of constrained
operating budgets, aging infrastructure and ever increasing energy
bills.
I introduced the School Building Enhancement Act in 2005 after
learning that energy bills were the second-highest operating
expenditure for schools after personnel costs. At that time schools
were paying $6 billion annually on energy, more than the amount spent
on textbooks and computers combined. In 2007, due to the sky-rocketing
costs of energy, the annual spending by schools on energy had increased
to $8 billion.
Fortunately, there are ways for schools to offset the soaring price
of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, thirty
percent of energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or
inefficiently. By understanding where energy is used unwisely and
implementing simple changes in the operations and maintenance of school
buildings, a school's operating costs can be reduced by 5-25 percent.
Schools that are seeking even greater long term savings can retrofit
their buildings with more efficient systems and replace old appliances.
The $2 billion saved could be used for purchases that directly benefit
our America's students--such as hiring 30,000 new teachers or
purchasing 40 million additional textbooks annually.
However, cash strapped school systems are often unable to find the
necessary financial resources to invest in these energy efficient
upgrades. My bill would assist schools in making these improvements by
providing grants to states and local educational agencies through the
Department of Education for energy efficiency upgrades. These
improvements would need to follow the guidelines of the EnergySmart
Schools Program of the Department of Energy or the Energy Star for K-12
School Districts program at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Schools that have already implemented energy efficiency measures
have succeeded in achieving significant savings. For example, the
Summerfield Elementary School in my home state of New Jersey has
implemented energy efficiency measures which have reduced their
consumption by 32 percent, allowing Summerfield to save $41,000
annually on energy costs. Summerfield is just one of many schools that
are being built to use energy smarter and more efficiently; according
to the Environmental Protection Agency there are over 800 schools that
have been Energy Star certified and are saving 40 cents per square foot
in operating costs annually.
Energy efficiency upgrades not only save schools money; there are
potential health and learning benefits to students and teachers as
well. For example, daylighting can dramatically decrease the use of
energy in schools. According to a study by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, students who learn in daylit classrooms have 5%-14%
better test scores than those who learn in non-daylit schools. My
colleague and friend Darlene Hooley and a cosponsor of H.R. 3197 has
already testified about these benefits as the chair of the Green
Schools Caucus.
Twenty-six of our colleagues, including six of our fellow committee
members,--Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Hare and
Mr. Payne--are cosponsors of the School Building Enhancement Act. I
would like to invite all the members of the Committee to become a
cosponsor of this important bill.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify today and I look forward
to answering any questions you might have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to
all of the witnesses for their testimony.
Are there any members of the panel that have questions? I
am going to ask you to keep them to a minimum because we have a
great opportunity to interact with our colleagues all the time,
and we have a full panel coming up.
Mr. Hare?
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly to my
friend, Mr. King from Iowa. You raised a point. I just want to
disagree with you on a couple of areas. You said it is better
to build five schools than four schools. I would rather see
this bill build four schools with quality workers that know
what they are doing that have been trained to do that type of
work. I think that is terribly important, not only schools, but
our roads and bridges.
And the other thing you mentioned in your testimony that
there has been $8.6 billion in costs to the taxpayers so we
could hire 18,000 teachers. And while I like statistics as well
as the next person, I would suggest to you, with all due
respect, that if we could work together to stop the $160
billion the president is asking for the war, we would have
380,000 teachers.
So I think when you are comparing these numbers, I think we
want to be careful. I have found that the construction unions
and the people trained in those unions to do that kind of work,
go through the apprenticeships, have a very clear idea what
they are doing. And if we are going to build schools for our
children to be educated in, I want them safe, and I want them
built by people that know what they are doing.
So with all due respect, I would just disagree. I would
rather err on the side of having skilled craftspeople do what
they do best. And I think it is the least we can do for our
construction workers.
Mr. King. And in response, Mr. Hare, I would say that those
workers that I have worked with and those whom I have hired and
those professional contractors that have belonged to
organizations like ABC and some of the AGC contractors--and the
list goes on--they set a very high level of professionalism.
And they would not take that viewpoint as a compliment.
In fact, when I look at the work that I have been involved
in throughout my entire career, I am proud of every single
square foot, every cubic yard, whether it is concrete or
whether it is dirt, every board, every nail. And we don't have
a return on anything we do. And if so, we warranty it.
We have an apprentice program that goes constantly because
we can hire someone in as a laborer and they can do a whole
variety of things until you find out what their aptitude is.
And they can be a year-round worker with wages and benefits and
health insurance, retirement, and vacation pay. You can't do
that if you have to start people out with Davis-Bacon wage
scale.
And I think the point on the hiring more teachers is the
weakest point that I made. I think the stronger point is do we
want to build more schools and we should use our dollars as
effectively as possible. And I think that behind this sets the
difference in a legitimate philosophical disagreement in the
approach of employers.
Do employers really see their employees as assets to their
company to be nurtured and trained and built and improved on
their wages and benefits or do they see them as a tool or a
machine to be pushed into the work, to be utilized and
victimized? And I am of the view that my employees are part of
our team, part of our family. And we put on our Christmas tree
a little medallion for every employee and their spouse and
every child so we get a sense of the full breadth of the
dependency of all the people that work for us.
And I am proud of that. There are a lot of companies that
are that way. It is legitimate to have a different viewpoint.
But I really regret the adversarial relationship that emerges
between employers and employees because of the Davis-Bacon wage
scale.
Mr. Hare. And I appreciate that. And let me say to my
friend from Iowa that we just do have--I think we are going to
have to agree to disagree on this. I have yet to see--
particularly in my district--but any of the unionized
construction trade people, any project that they have worked
on, whether they have impact agreements and other things across
my district.
These people know what they are doing. They do it well. And
I don't think we are pushing anybody in.
As a matter of fact, I think the construction union workers
in my district would tell you that they could always use more
work. So I think it is important to remember that there is a
purpose to all this training.
And they have worked for the business community on these
impact agreements and making sure that workers' averages don't
get there. We have built community centers, schools, and
bridges in my district. And hopefully we can do more.
But I think every project that I have seen has been done
where we have paid prevailing. Those are projects that I am
very proud of and I think the workers that work on those are
proud, too. So I guess we are just going to have to agree to
disagree.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Again, I am really trying to
diminish our questions. Obviously, the discussion between Mr.
King and Mr. Hare can go on on the floor in committee and
elsewhere. But we have a time problem with some of the members
of the next panel is what my concern is. If it is urgent, dire,
you want to put it on the record, put it on the record. But I
am going to ask you not to take more than 1 minute.
Anyone? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
testimony and again, for the legislation that many of you have
introduced and for your comments and suggestions on this
subject.
I would like to now recognize our second panel. We will
hear from Kathleen J. Moore, who is the director of the school
facilities planning division for the California Department of
Education; Judi Caddick, teacher, Illinois Education
Association, Memorial Junior High School in Lansing, Illinois;
and Mary Cullinane, who is the director of innovation and
business development team for the Microsoft Corporation.
And I think, Mr. Loebsack, you wanted to introduce our
witness from Iowa.
Then we will hear from Paul Vallas, who is the
superintendent at the Recovery School District in New Orleans,
Louisiana; Jim Waters, who is the director of policy and
communications, Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions
from Bowling Green, Kentucky; and Neil McCluskey, who is the
associate director, Center for Educational Freedom from the
CATO Institute in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Loebsack?
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to
introduce Dr. Paula Vincent today. Dr. Vincent is the
superintendent of the Clear Creek Amana School District in
Iowa. Two of the schools under her excellent guidance are in
the 2nd District, which I represent. They are Clear Creek
Elementary School and Clear Creek Amana High School.
Dr. Vincent is also an alumna of a very distinguished
university in the 2nd District, the University of Iowa. She
received her bachelors degree, bachelor of arts degree in
elementary education and special education with a science
concentration summa cum laude, her master of arts in secondary
education with a concentration in special education with
distinction and her doctorate in educational leadership with a
concentration in school finance with distinction.
Dr. Vincent's academic successes are matched only by her
distinguished career. In addition to serving as superintendent,
she has taught in suburban Kansas City and rural Iowa. Dr.
Vincent has also served as the director of special education in
an Iowa area education agency and a central office
administrator.
I think it is safe to say that we are very lucky to have
Dr. Vincent in Iowa and in particular, in the 2nd District. I
think we are extremely lucky to have her and her as a strong
advocate for education in our schools.
And thank you for all you have done, Dr. Vincent, done so
well. And I look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Welcome to our entire panel.
Dr. Vincent, that will not come out of your time.
And let me explain the lighting system, as you may have
observed. When you begin to testify, there will be a green
light. That will be for 4 minutes. There will be an amber light
telling you you have a minute to try to wrap up.
We obviously want you to complete your thoughts in coherent
sentences and all the rest of that. But we do, as you can see,
want to have time for questions from the panel.
I know that a couple of you have a time problem at the
backend of this. So we will try to proceed in a most
expeditious fashion. But I want you to make your points and get
them on the record.
Ms. Moore, we are going to begin with you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN MOORE, DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL FACILITIES
PLANNING DIVISION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon,
and all members of the Education and Labor Committee for the
opportunity to offer testimony regarding the federal investment
in school facilities and to share the perspectives of one
state, California.
I am Kathleen Moore, director of the school facilities
planning division of the California Department of Education.
And my division is responsible for reviewing and approving
school sites and design plans for all California schools, as
well as administering the Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program.
Prior to taking my position at the department, I was
director of development and planning for the Elk Grove unified
school district, one of the fastest growing school districts in
the nation, where we built 27 new schools and modernized 22
schools in 15 years.
Chairman Miller and members of the committee, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell, fully
supports H.R. 3021, 3902, 3197, and 2470, some of which were
discussed here today.
California has a staggering $9 billion need for new
construction funds as well as $3.4 billion in modernization
needs. The demand for new and renovated public school
facilities is unprecedented in our nation's history.
With this demand comes an opportunity to create 21st
century learning environments that may look and operate very
differently than our existing schools designed under the 19th
century factory model. There is a growing body of research on
the importance of school facilities conditions, design, and
maintenance on student performance and teacher workplace
satisfaction.
Professor Earthman from UCLA indicates that between--there
is a difference of between 5 and 17 percentile points between
achievement of students in poor buildings and those students in
above-standard buildings. Not surprisingly, building age,
quality, and aesthetics make a difference.
Research also indicates that student attitudes and behavior
improve when the facility conditions improve. We know that for
significant reform to be effective, design flexibility is
necessary, particularly at the secondary level to allow for
such programs as career technical education and organizational
structures such as small learning communities to flourish.
Also of note is the impact of school facilities on
community vitality. School quality has a direct and positive
impact on residential property values, can help revitalize
distressed neighborhoods, can affect the ability of an area to
attract business and workers.
California serves a total of 6.3 million K-12 students and
has passed some of the largest state bonds in our nation's
history. And yet the unmet facility need is estimated at $6.9
billion.
In terms of modernization, assistance is needed to bring
our older school facilities up to today's educational and code
standards and to allow those facilities to be more energy
efficient. At the direction of Governor Schwarzenegger,
California is leading by example on energy efficiency and
conservation, sustainability, green building and green
purchasing practices. Our state is exploring the potential for
grid neutrality. The success of this concept will rely on
continued federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation of
solar and other alternative energy equipment.
In terms of the economic benefits of school construction,
we found that the expenditure of funds for school construction
will generate economic impact which greatly exceeds the direct
construction expenditures. In our last two statewide bond
cycles, 175,000 jobs were created, and the direct impact on the
economy was approximately $20 billion.
In terms of the federal role for school facilities, we ask
for your assistance in ensuring all students, including those
with special needs, have access to quality education supported
by modern facilities that meet not only access and compliance
requirements, the Americans with Disabilities Act, but are
designed to support today's standards and curriculum, are
constructed with quality and energy efficient materials that
will stand the test of time, and are equipped with technology
that will support and indeed enhance learning.
The educational landscape is changing. Schools are more and
more centers of community and they are expected to be available
24/7.
I would like to highlight two very successful federal
programs that have assisted LEAs in meeting their facilities'
demands. The first is the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program,
and the second is the federal renovation program.
California used nearly $500 million in these allocations.
And the programs proved invaluable in providing resources to
assist school districts in establishing and tailoring academy
programs to improve student and career opportunities statewide.
QZABs require a minimal federal investment while providing
large school renovation results. And I provide some examples in
the testimony. We encourage Congress to renew the QZAB program.
And in conclusion, California has a $6.9 billion unmet
school facilities need. Modernization of our older school
facilities for educational and technological advances is
particularly needed. The federal government has authorized two
excellent facilities programs in the past, and the proposed
legislation discussed here today will positively impact the
physical and educational conditions of the nation's schools.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify, and we
stand ready to assist in any manner that we may. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen J. Moore, Director of the School
Facilities Planning Division, California Department of Education
Thank you Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, Congressman Kildee,
Congresswomen Woolsey, Davis, Sanchez and all members of the Education
and Labor Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding
federal investment in school facilities and to share the perspectives
and needs of California. I am Kathleen Moore, Director of the School
Facilities Planning Division of the California Department of Education.
My division is responsible for reviewing and approving school sites and
design plans for all California schools as well as administering the
Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program (QZAB) authorized by the Tax Payer
Relief Act of 1997, P.L. 105-34. Prior to taking my position with the
Department, I was Director of Development and Planning for the Elk
Grove Unified School District, one of the fastest growing school
districts in the nation at the time, where I had the privilege and
responsibility to plan and finance over 27 new and 22 modernized
schools in 15 years. I hope to bring a statewide as well as district
perspective to the hearing here today.
Chairman Miller and members of the committee, State Superintendent
of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell fully supports the H.R. 3021 the
21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act introduced by
Representative Chandler, along with yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the
subcommittee chairman Kildee, H.R. 3902 Congressman Loebsack's Public
School Repair and Renovation Act, H.R. 3197 the School Building
Enhancement Act authored by representative Holt, as well as H.R. 2470,
the American's Better Classrooms Act (ABC) sponsored by Ways and Means
Committee Chair Rangel, Congressmen Ramstad, Etheridge and 216 House
colleagues. The ABC bill provides financing though federal tax credits
for $25 billion in bonds to build new schools and renovate and repair
existing schools. The program provides a tax credit to the purchaser of
the bonds saving the local school district the cost of the long
interest of the bond.
California has a staggering $9 billion need for new construction
funds as well as $3.4 billion in modernization needs. We believe
successful federal facilities programs such as the current QZAB program
and the 2001 Federal Repair and Renovation Program serve as models for
the type and quality of federal investment that is necessary to ensure
that all students have safe and modern facilities that not only support
but enhance student learning and achievement.
The demand for new and renovated public school facilities is
unprecedented in our nation's history. Los Angeles Unified School
District, the second largest school district in the nation, is
undertaking one of the largest public works programs in the nation to
build and modernize schools. With this demand comes an opportunity to
create 21st century learning environments that may look and operate
very differently than many of our existing schools designed under the
19th century factory model.
My comments focus on four specific areas: (1) the impact of
facilities on student achievement and teacher retention, (2)
California's school facilities needs, (3) the economic benefits of
school construction, and (4) successful federal facility programs and
the need for continued and expanded federal assistance.
The Impact of Facilities on Student Achievement and Teacher Retention
There is a growing body of research on the importance of school
facility condition, design and maintenance on student performance and
teacher workplace satisfaction. The National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities (NCEF), created by the United States Department
of Education in 1997, cites over 40 academic research papers on this
subject. Professor Earthman from the University of California at Los
Angeles finds that researchers have repeatedly found a difference of
between 5-17 percentile points between achievement of students in poor
buildings and those students in above-standard buildings, when the
socioeconomic status of students is controlled.\1\ Similarly, in 2005,
the Design Council of London published, in response to a national
effort in the UK to create world class 21st century school buildings, a
review of 167 sources which showed clear evidence that extremely poor
environments have a negative effect on students and teachers and
improving these have significant benefits.\2\ Poor building conditions
greatly increase the likelihood that teachers will leave their
school.\3\ Numerous studies have confirmed the relationship between a
school's physical conditions and improved attendance and test scores,
particularly in the areas of indoor air quality, lighting, thermal
comfort and acoustics.\4\
Not surprisingly, building age, quality and aesthetics also make a
difference. Schneider (2002) found ``there is a consensus in the
research that newer and better school buildings contribute to higher
student scores on standardized tests.'' \5\ Research also indicates
that student attitudes and behavior improve when the facility
conditions improve. Teachers report that adequate space and access to
technology are important variables to deliver curriculum. Facility
directors report that new and renovated schools can provide better
opportunities for small schools, joint use and spaces for community,
classrooms outfitted for better technology, and ``green'' design.
We know that for significant reform to be effective, design
flexibility is necessary, particularly at the secondary level to allow
for such programs as Career Technical Education and organizational
structures such as small learning communities to flourish. A 2005 study
of a large urban Texas School District concluded building design such
as large group instruction areas, color schemes, outside learning
areas, instructional neighborhoods, and building on a student scale had
a statistically significant impact on performance.\6\
Also of note is the impact of school facilities on community
vitality. School quality has a direct and positive impact on
residential property values,\7\ new or well-maintained school
facilities can help revitalize distressed neighborhoods,\8\ and school
quality helps determine localities' quality of life and can affect the
ability of an area to attract businesses and workers.\9\
In summary, the physical condition of school facilities impact
student achievement and experience as well as teacher retention and
community vitality. A quality school facility is but one component
necessary for successful learning, alone it is no silver bullet, but
together with rigorous standards, qualified teachers and system
accountability, it can positively impact educational outcomes.
California School Facility Needs
California serves a total of 6.3 million K-12 students and has
passed some of the largest state bonds in the nation's history and yet
the unmet facility need is estimated at $6.9 billion. Under the current
School Facility Program, K-12 school districts must demonstrate the
need for new or modernized facilities. The districts have identified a
need to construct new schools to house over 600,000 pupils and
modernize schools for an additional 1 million pupils. The cost to
address these needs is estimated to be roughly $9 billion for new
construction for which we currently have about $2.7 billion available
and $3.4 billion for modernization for which we currently have $2.8
billion available.
In terms of modernization, assistance is needed to bring our older
school facilities up to today's educational and code standards and to
allow these facilities to be more energy efficient. We do a decent job
of building new schools in California; however, modernization for
educational program changes and improvements is just not occurring. Our
state modernization dollars simply cover access compliance, paths of
travel and systems upgrades. Many districts are being asked to choose
between making American with Disability Act (ADA) improvements and
completing other modernization work on the campus thus resulting in
facilities that continue to have aging infrastructure.
At the direction of Governor Schwarzenegger, California is leading
by example on energy efficiency and conservation, sustainability, green
building and green purchasing practices. Through Executive Order S-20-
04, known as the ``Green Building Initiative,'' and the accompanying
Green Building Action Plan, the Governor calls for public buildings to
be 20 percent more energy efficient by 2015 and encourages the private
sector to do the same.
California schools are also following suit. There is currently $100
million available in High Performance Incentive Grants for California
schools. The program will fund new construction, modernizations and
relocatables that can be deemed environment-friendly if they are based
on designs and materials that promote the efficient use of water,
natural resources and energy, and also provide superior indoor air
quality, acoustics, and lighting. California voters approved the
incentive package under Proposition 1D in November 2006.
Our state is exploring the potential for ``grid neutrality'' (i.e.
zero net energy) in all new schools in California, a concept that means
schools will not only self-generate all the energy they need, but will
also put excess energy back into the grid. The success of this concept
will rely on continued federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation
of solar and other alternative energy equipment.
The Economic Benefits of School Construction
Prior to the passage of our state's 2004 statewide facilities bond
measure, an analysis was conducted to determine the economic benefits
of such a bond measure on the California economy. The analysis found
that the expenditure of funds for school construction will generate
economic impact which greatly exceeds the direct construction
expenditures. In the last two statewide bond cycles alone, the
approximate $10 billion already expended created over 175,000 jobs and
doubled the direct impact on the economy to approximately $20 billion
because construction activity generates additional business and
employment in sectors which provide the lumber, concrete, and many
other goods and services which go into the construction and
modernization of schools. These benefits would extend to federal
construction funds as proposed in H.R. 3021 and 3902 and serve as an
economic stimulus beyond the intrinsic value of new and modernized
schools for students and staff.
The Federal Role in Facilities--Past, Present and Future
We have been asked to comment on a federal facility role. I have
discussed this with my colleagues and the members of the Californians
for School Facilities, an organization made up of school districts,
architects and construction professionals who tirelessly advocate on
behalf of California's school facilities needs and thought back to my
tenure in a fast growing school district. Resoundingly the needs were
the same: assistance in ensuring all students, including those with
special needs, have access to a quality education supported by modern
facilities that meet not only access and compliance requirements
(Americans with Disabilities Act) but are designed to support today's
standards and curriculum, are constructed with quality and energy
efficient materials that will stand the test of time, and are equipped
with technology that will support and indeed enhance learning.
The education landscape is changing. Schools are more and more
centers of communities that are expected to be available 24/7 for after
and before school programs, parent and community education,
intervention programs, field areas--all of which place stress on the
infrastructure. School leaders grapple with the increasing maintenance
and modernization demands and costs.
Further, California is deeply committed to closing the achievement
gap and we believe that safe, up-to-date, quality facilities are part
of the solution to this complicated problem.
I would like to highlight two very successful federal programs
which have assisted Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) meet their
facilities demands.
The first is the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) program. The
Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program has been a very popular program in
California since its inception. The program permits LEAs serving large
concentrations of low income families to benefit from interest-free
financing to pay for building repair and renovation, invest in
equipment and technology, develop challenging curricula, and train
quality teachers. QZABs are bonds the federal government subsidizes by
allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately
equal to the interest that states and communities would pay holders of
taxable bonds. As a result, issuers (LEAs) are generally responsible
for repayment of just the principal.
Since the first QZABs authorization in calendar year 1998 through
calendar 2007 California has utilized nearly $500 million in
allocations. This program has proven invaluable in providing resources
to assist school districts in establishing and tailoring academy
programs to improve student career opportunities statewide. The program
leverages local business involvement by requiring a local business to
make a contribution worth the equivalent of 10 percent of an actual
bond sale. The financial investment provided by QZABs for school
facilities also supports economic growth within California by assisting
with the enhancement of school construction projects and increased job
development.
QZABs require a minimal federal investment while providing large
school renovation results. Following are two examples of successful
career academies that have benefited from the use of QZABs:
Clovis Unified School District/Fresno Unified School District
The Clovis and Fresno Unified School Districts are located in urban
areas of Fresno County. In the two districts together, there are
approximately 115,000 students in 146 schools. Approximately 60 percent
of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. The districts
jointly applied for QZAB authorization in the amount of $12 million.
Funds were used to rehabilitate an existing warehouse/manufacturing
plant to establish eleven technological academies of the Center for
Advanced Research and Technology (CART). The technological laboratory
suites are available to more than 1,600 students from the two school
districts and provide relevant, specialized experiences in agriculture,
biomedicine, chemistry, design/engineering, environment, financing,
information, logistics/spatial, manufacturing, and telecommunications.
The school's partners were Microsoft, Grundfos Pump Corporation,
Johanson Transportation, and Richard Lake, CPA. These contributions
from the business community, totaling $2 million, were well above the
required 10 percent match.
Baldwin Park Unified School District
The Baldwin Park Unified School District is located in Los Angeles
County, 20 miles from the city of Los Angeles. The region is very
urban, and 80 percent of its 19,000 students qualify for free or
reduced-price lunch.
The district requested $12 million under the QZAB program to
establish two Computer Technology Academies at Sierra Vista and Baldwin
Park High Schools. The academies focus on vocational technology,
specifically through a service technician and the network technician
certification programs. These two programs provide students with skills
necessary to become certified as service and network technicians based
on a worldwide standard of competency. Students have the opportunity to
obtain industry-recognized certifications upon graduation that prepare
them for ongoing technology education and careers. Teachers receive
ongoing professional technology training with the most up-to-date
equipment available. All high school students within the district are
able to enroll in academy classes.
The bond issued by Baldwin Park Unified was used to modernize the
structure and technology of the two sites in order to support the
programs. The schools' primary partner was Intel. JES & Co., a non-
profit education organization, also provided the academies with
curriculum, materials, and teacher training.
We encourage Congress to renew the QZAB program and to expand its
support for the construction of new schools to support 21st century
learning through Congressman Rangel's American's Better Classroom Act.
The second successful federal program is the Federal Renovation
Program. The U.S Department of Education Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2001 set aside $103.6 million for the urgent renovation and
repair of existing school facilities in California. The uniqueness of
this program allowed charter and non-profit private schools, in
addition to public school districts and county superintendents of
schools, to participate by applying for funds. The qualifying criteria
were broken down into three funding categories as follows: high
poverty, high poverty and rural, rural only and non-high poverty or
rural.
The number of LEAs that applied for the Federal Renovation Program
funding in California was 783. A total of 410 LEA's applications
received funding, which represented 52 percent of the total
applications received. The funds accomplished some of the following:
emergency repairs and renovations, modifications to comply with ADA,
asbestos abatement and system upgrades. More importantly, California
was able to distribute the funding expeditiously to schools for
projects that had immediate impact on the economy. LEAs complemented
the flexibility of the program to meet locally determined facility
needs with minimal audit and record keeping--a model we strongly
suggest. Congressman Loebsack's bill H.R. 3021 reestablishes this very
successful program.
Conclusion
California has a $6.9 billion unmet school facilities need.
Modernization of our older schools for educational and technological
advances is particularly needed. The federal government has authorized
two excellent facilities programs in the past and the proposed
legislation discussed here today will positively impact the physical
and educational condition of the nation's schools.
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to testify before the
Education and Labor Committee. We stand ready to assist you in crafting
legislative language that will provide needed federal funding to
support state and local efforts and to build and modernize school
facilities. Our objective is to meet 21st century education standards
and design so that our students can achieve and ultimately succeed in
the global economy.
endnotes
\1\ Glen I. Earthman, ``School Facilities Conditions and Student
Academic Achievement.'' Report prepared for Williams v. State of
California, University of California, Los Angeles, 2002, pp. 8-9.
\2\ Steve Higgins and others, ``The Impact of School Environments:
A Literature Review.'' Design Council, London, UK, 2005.
\3\ Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider, and Yi Shang, ``The Effects of
School Facility Quality on Teacher Retention in Urban School
Districts.'' National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
Washington DC, 2004.
\4\ Mark Schneider, ``Do School Facilities Affect Academic
Outcomes?'' National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
Washington, D.C., 2002.
\5\ Schnieder, 2002, p. 8.
\6\ Stephanie Hughes, ``The Relationship Between School Design
Variables and Student Achievement in a Large Urban Texas School
District'', Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 2005.
\7\ Thomas Kane and others, ``School Accountability Ratings and
Housing Values'', The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C., 2003
\8\ Local Government Commission. ``New Schools for Older
Neighborhoods: Strategies for Building our Communities' Most Important
Assets.'' Sacramento, California, 2002.
\9\ David Salveson and Henry Renski, ``The Importance of Quality of
Life in the Location Decisions of New Economic Firms.'' Reviews of
Economic Development Literature and Practice, No.15. Economic
Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Caddick?
STATEMENT OF JUDI CADDICK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Caddick. Chairman Miller and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
urgent need to address our nation's public school
infrastructure.
I began my teaching career 19 years ago, and I have spent
the last 17 years teaching math to sixth, seventh, and eighth
graders at Memorial Junior High in Lansing, Illinois. For
years, Lansing was a solid blue collar middle class suburb,
many of whose residents worked in the area steel mills. With
the decline of area manufacturing jobs, we have seen an
increase in the number of students from low-income families.
Four years ago, our student enrollment was approximately
700, but rapid and significant increases have resulted in a
current enrollment approaching 950. As a result, we have faced
problems of overcrowding and outdated school facilities. In my
experience, and the experience of my colleagues, school
modernization enhances student learning in many ways.
For example, it addresses concerns for overcrowding. It
allows educators to plan an environment more conducive to
curriculum integration, engaged learning, and technology
integration, builds the infrastructure to support and meet the
demands of modern technology, addresses safety and
environmental concerns brought about from aging structures
which used unsafe materials, such as asbestos, improves student
and staff morale by establishing learning communities instead
of isolated classrooms in a long hallway, adds to property
values, thereby improving the community, improves the offering
of extra curricular activities for students, giving them a
constructive avenue for learning through teaming and physical
accomplishments, improves the environment for offering after-
school learning activities to meet the needs of the community,
such as tutoring services and clubs.
I have seen these principles at work in my school. The
original section of our building was built in 1945, and there
were three subsequent additions. The age and condition of the
building presented our teachers with many challenges.
While the district was able to purchase new technology with
grant money, it was difficult to use three computers, a
printer, and a television hook-up for demonstration with only
two outlets in each classroom. Our school board, anticipating
an increase in enrollment and considering the limitations of
the building, decided to build a new facility. The building is
being constructed in phases with the sixth grade wing being
completed in December 2006, and the seventh and eighth grades
expected to be completed this year.
Our enrollment increased so rapidly that the district had
to hire seven additional teachers before any of the new rooms
were ready. This meant the teachers had to travel from one room
to another rather than having their own space.
Our average sixth grade class size in 2006 was 36.3. In
2007 it was 29.7, and this year we are back above 30. Had we
not built the new building with the additional classrooms, our
average class size would now be 39 students.
We have seen an immediate, positive impact now that our
sixth graders have moved to the new building. Hallways in the
old building were so narrow and crowded that it was difficult
to navigate from one classroom to another, especially if you
were a tiny sixth grader trying to get through the eighth
graders.
There were frequent fights as students pushed and shoved or
accidentally bumped into each other and tempers flared.
Teachers often could not see incidents where adult intervention
may have prevented bullying or harassment.
In the new building, there is ample room for students to
move freely, and teachers can more easily supervise behavior.
The new classrooms have great lighting, new furniture, white
boards, sufficient outlets spaced so that teachers and staff
are not tripping over multiple extension cords.
Our old building had carpeting in the special education
classrooms, and the sewers had backed up numerous times
flooding those rooms. Many of our students and staff have
asthma and allergies that were exacerbated by the conditions in
those classrooms. They are all breathing easier in the new
building.
As we walk from the old building into the new building it
is like walking from a cave into sunlight. Adults and children
alike have commented on how stressful it feels in the old
building and how calm and safe it feels in the new one. We are
fortunate to have these new facilities available to us, but so
many schools across the nation are not so lucky.
My written testimony outlines the national problem we are
facing in ensuring safe, modern school facilities for every
child, which my personal experiences clearly illustrate the
necessity for. Simply put, America's schools are in desperate
need of repair and renovation. And the research is clear.
School conditions impact student learning.
Ensuring all of our nation's students access to safe,
modern schools that are not overcrowded requires a significant
federal investment. Federal assistance is particularly needed
to ensure targeting of resources to communities with the
greatest needs.
NEA strongly urges Congress to help meet these needs by
creating a federal school renovation grant program targeted to
communities that have struggled to fund needed repairs. We
support the Public School Repair and Renovation Act introduced
by Representative Loebsack and Senator Harkin and the 21st
Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act introduced
by Representative Chandler. We also support legislation to
provide tax credits for bonds for school modernization and new
construction projects nationwide such as the America's Better
Classroom Act introduced by House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Rangel, and Representatives Ramstad and Etheridge.
And we support the School Building Enhancement Act
introduced by Representative Holt. This bill would authorize
grants to help schools become more energy efficient.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Caddick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judi Caddick, on Behalf of the National Education
Association
Chairman Miller and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the urgent need to address
our nation's public school infrastructure.
I began my teaching career 19 years ago and I have spent the last
17 years teaching math to sixth, seventh, and eighth graders at
Memorial Junior High in Lansing, Illinois. Lansing is located just
south of Chicago on the Indiana border. For years, Lansing was a solid
blue collar middle class suburb, many of whose residents worked in the
area steel mills. With the decline of area manufacturing jobs, we have
seen an increase in the number of students from low income families.
Four years ago, our student enrollment was approximately 700, but
rapid and significant increases have resulted in a current enrollment
approaching 950. As a result, we have faced problems of overcrowding
and outdated school facilities.
I would like to focus my testimony today on my first-hand
impressions of the impact of school conditions on teaching and learning
in my community. In my experience, and the experience of my colleagues,
school modernization enhances student learning in many ways. For
example, it:
Addresses concerns for overcrowding--something we have
seen in Lansing as our enrollments have grown.
Allows educators to plan an environment that is more
conducive to curriculum integration, engaged learning, and technology
integration.
Builds the infrastructure to support and meet the demands
of modern technology.
Addresses safety and environmental concerns brought about
from aging structures which used unsafe materials, such as asbestos.
Improves student and staff morale by establishing learning
communities instead of isolated classrooms in a long hallway.
Enhances the inclusion of new cutting edge technology.
Adds to property values, thereby improving the community.
However, without federal and state dollars, the tax burden is placed
squarely on homeowners, many of whom are senior citizens on fixed
incomes.
Enhances the school as a community center.
Improves the offering of extra curricular activities for
students, giving them a constructive avenue for learning through
teaming and physical accomplishments.
Improves the environment for offering after-school
learning activities to meet the needs of the community, such as
tutoring services, clubs, etc.
I have seen these principles at work in my school. The original
section of our building was built in 1945 and there were three
subsequent additions. The age and the condition of the building
presented our teachers with many challenges. While the district was
able to purchase new technology with grant money, it was difficult to
use three computers, a printer, and a television hook-up for
demonstration with only two outlets in each classroom.
Our school board, anticipating an increase in enrollment and
considering the limitations of the building, decided to build a new
facility. The building is being constructed in phases with the sixth
grade wing being completed in December 2006, and seventh grade and
eighth grades expected to be completed this year. The final phase is to
be completed by September 2009 and will include a second gymnasium, new
music room, and office space for our administrators.
Our enrollment increased so rapidly that the district had to hire
seven additional teachers before any of the new rooms were ready. This
meant the teachers had to travel from room to room rather than have
their own space. Our average sixth grade class size in 2006 was 36.3,
in 2007 it was 29.7 and this year we are back above 30. Had we not
built the new building with the additional classrooms, our class size
average would now be 39 students.
We have seen an immediate, positive impact now that our sixth
graders have moved to the new building. Our students are amazed at
their new school building. Hallways in the old building were so narrow
and crowded that it was difficult to navigate from one classroom to
another, especially if you were a tiny sixth grader trying to get
through the eighth graders. There were frequent fights as students
pushed and shoved or accidentally bumped into each other and tempers
flared. Teachers often could not see incidents where adult intervention
may have prevented bullying or harassment.
In the new building, there is ample room for students to move
freely and teachers can more easily supervise behavior. The new
classrooms have great lighting, new furniture, white boards, and
sufficient outlets placed so that teachers and staff are not tripping
over multiple extension cords. It is so nice not to have to unplug the
television where the PowerPoint presentation is displayed so that you
can plug in a second computer for a student.
Our old building had carpeting in the special education classrooms
and the sewers had backed up numerous times, flooding those rooms. Even
though our custodians cleaned the carpets as best they could, on hot
days in September the odor was unmistakable. Many of our students and
staff have asthma and allergies that were exacerbated by the conditions
in those classrooms. They are all breathing easier in the new building.
As we walk from the old building into the new building it is like
walking from a cave into sunlight. Adults and children alike have
commented on how stressful it feels in the old building and how calm
and safe it feels in the new one.
We are fortunate to have these new facilities available to us, but
so many schools across the nation are not so lucky.
A Nationwide Problem
My personal experiences clearly illustrate the necessity for
meaningful federal assistance for school construction and
modernization. This need reaches far beyond Illinois. It is a
nationwide problem that demands nationwide attention.
America's schools are in desperate need of repair and renovation.
Across the country, students learn in overcrowded classrooms with
peeling paint, leaking roofs, and faulty wiring. Some schools hold
classes in ``temporary'' trailers, converted closets, and hallways. In
fact, the Modular Building Institute estimated in 2003 that more than
220,000 portable classrooms were in use by public school systems in the
United States.
Too many students attend schools that lack basic electrical and
telecommunications equipment necessary for connection to the Internet
or the use of new education technologies. Students attending public
schools in less than adequate condition face not only direct impacts on
their academic achievement, but also significant dangers to their
personal health and safety.
According to the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
in 1998, the average public school building in the United States was 42
years old. The mean age ranged from 46 years in the Northeast and
Central states to 37 years in the Southeast. About one-fourth (28
percent) of all public schools were built before 1950, and 45 percent
of all public schools were built between 1950 and 1969. Seventeen
percent of public schools were built between 1970 and 1984, and 10
percent were built after 1985.
Impact on Student Achievement
My personal experiences regarding the impact of school conditions
on student learning are backed up by a growing body of research
supporting the relationship between the condition of a school's
facilities and student achievement.
A recent study (The Walls Speak: The Interplay of Quality
Facilities, School Climate, and Student Achievement, 2006) found a
positive correlation between a school facility's condition, school
climate, and student achievement.
Another study (The Impact of School Environments, 2005)
analyzed 25 years of research and found that the majority supported the
relationship between school quality and student performance.
Conversely, a study of Houston schools (The Wise Man Builds His House
Upon the Rock, 2004) demonstrated how poor school conditions related to
poor school performance.
A 1996 study by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University found a significant difference in academic achievement
between students in substandard classrooms and demographically similar
children in a first-class learning environment.
Similarly, a 1995 study of North Dakota high schools found
a positive correlation between school condition and both student
achievement and student behavior. A 1995 study of overcrowded schools
in New York City found students in such schools scored significantly
lower on both mathematics and reading exams than did similar students
in underutilized schools.
Modern Schools for the 21st Century
Educational technology is a crucial element of a quality education.
Technology in the classroom both enhances the educational experience
and prepares students for employment in an economy growing increasingly
dependent on technology. In the classroom, students who have daily
access to cutting-edge technology perform better academically. Studies
have found students who use technology in the classroom show more
enthusiasm, have higher attendance rates, develop better writing
skills, and display a greater capacity to communicate effectively about
complex problems.
Unfortunately, inadequate infrastructure limits access to classroom
technology in many areas. The average school building in America was
designed and built for a pre-technology era. Many schools are not ready
to accommodate either basic connections to the Internet or the wider
range of exciting educational technologies.
School Modernization and ``Green Schools''
Modernizing our nation's schools is also critical to ensure
students and educators a healthy environment. Twenty percent of the
American population spends their days in school buildings, and one
quarter of these students and school staff attend schools that are
considered substandard or dangerous to occupant health.
Every child and school staff person has the right to a school with
healthy air to breath and conditions that foster learning. ``Green
schools'' create a safe and healthy environment that is conducive to
teaching and learning while saving energy, resources and money.
Specifically, such schools provide an environment that has:
Superior indoor air quality
Superior acoustics
Daylight and views
Thermal comfort (temperature and humidity)
Mold prevention
Studies demonstrate that green schools directly benefit student
health and performance. These studies show that:
Daylight improves performance
Good indoor air quality improves health
Acoustics increase learning potential
Mold prevention decreases asthma incidences (asthma is the
number one cause of school absenteeism due to a chronic illness)
Comfortable indoor temperatures increase occupant
satisfaction
Green schools serve to engage and inspire students and can be used
as interactive teaching tools. For example, alternative energy sources
such as solar panel roofs can be studied, organic vegetables can be
grown and eaten at lunch, and ecosystems can be studied in constructed
wetlands. Green schools also increase staff satisfaction, and they
commonly report reductions in teacher absenteeism and turnover.
If all new school construction and renovation used the ``green''
approach starting today, energy savings alone would total $20 billion
over the next 10 years.
The Need for Federal Assistance
Ensuring all of our nation's students access to safe, modern
schools that are not overcrowded requires a significant federal
investment. Although school construction is, and will remain, primarily
a state and local responsibility, states and school districts cannot
meet the current urgent needs without federal assistance. In 1995, the
General Accounting Office estimated that just repairing existing school
facilities would cost $112 billion.
NEA's May 2000 report ``Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It
Cost?'' estimated the nationwide cost of repairing, renovating, or
building school facilities and installing modern educational technology
at $322 billion--nearly three times previous government estimates, and
roughly ten times what states currently spend.
Federal assistance is particularly needed to ensure targeting of
resources to communities with the greatest needs. The distribution of
recent state and local investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to
the most affluent communities, which are better able to fund new
investments without outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the
Building Educational Success Together (BEST) coalition found that the
quality of children's schools is dependent upon their racial or ethnic
background and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood. Local
spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice
as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on a per-
pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with
predominantly Caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2,000 more per
student in school repair and construction spending than predominantly
minority districts.
NEA strongly urges Congress to help meet these needs by creating a
federal school renovation grant program targeted to communities that
have struggled to fund needed repairs. Specifically, NEA supports the
Public School Repair and Renovation Act (H.R. 3902/ S.1492), introduced
by Representative Loebsack and Senator Harkin. Under this legislation,
states would receive funding based on their Title I allocation for
grants to poor and rural school districts. States would have the
discretion to require matching funds from the local district, bringing
the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 billion federal
investment.
The Public School Repair and Renovation Act builds on the highly
successful Emergency School Repair program Congress authorized and
funded in 2000. This very effective program provided grants to states
and local school districts to make emergency school repairs. The
program, which funded $1 billion in repairs, was an excellent example
of an appropriate federal-state partnership to renovate and repair
schools.
NEA also supports the 21st Century High-Performing Public School
Facilities Act (H.R. 3021), introduced by Representative Chandler. This
bill would require the Secretary of Education to make grants to school
districts for the construction, modernization, or repair of
kindergarten, elementary, or secondary schools to make them safe,
healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date. The bill
would give priority to districts serving a high number or percentage of
disadvantaged children and those whose public schools are in relatively
poor condition.
In addition to grant programs, NEA strongly supports legislation to
provide tax credits for bonds for school modernization and new
construction projects nationwide. The America's Better Classroom Act
(H.R. 2470/ S. 912), introduced by House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Rangel, and Representatives Ramstad, and Etheridge, has
received broad bipartisan support in the House over the last three
Congresses and currently has 217 House cosponsors. The bill would
provide for the issuance of more than $25 billion in such bonds. Under
the bill, the federal government would provide tax credits to bond
holders in lieu of interest payments, and the state or school district
would only be responsible for repaying the principal. This would save
millions of dollars in interest payments for states and districts and
help communities stretch limited resources to pay for additional school
facility projects and essential education programs.
The America's Better Classrooms Act provides support for the
building of new schools in America's urban, rural and suburban schools,
and the renovation and repair of existing schools through the expansion
of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program (QZAB). The small but well-
utilized QZAB program is another example of an effective federal
program providing federal support for local school facility repair and
renovation programs. Since the QZAB program was authorized in 1997,
school districts across the country have used the bonds to renovate and
repair schools to create new and innovative school educational centers
at a minimal cost to the U.S. Treasury.
We also support the School Building Enhancement Act (H.R.3197),
introduced by Representative Holt. This bill would authorize grants to
help schools become more energy efficient.
Finally, NEA would support a proposal to amend the federal
rehabilitation tax credit program to create a level playing field for
rehabilitation/modernization projects for aging public schools. Under
current law, an owner who wants to rehabilitate/modernize an older
building can have such projects qualify for federal tax credits equal
to 20 percent of the costs. With just a small change to the existing
program, this program could apply to public school renovations. Under
such a proposal, local governments would then be able to enter into a
sale/leaseback arrangement with private developers on public school
renovation projects using these federal tax credits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I urge
Congress to act quickly to authorize school modernization programs that
will help ensure every student in our nation the safe, modern learning
environment so integral to success.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
I want to note that we have been joined by video
conference, Superintendent Paul Vallas from the Recovery School
District in New Orleans.
And, Mr. Vallas, if you can hear me, we are going to hear
from Ms. Cullinane and Dr. Vincent, and then you will come
right after Dr. Vincent. So that should be about 10 minutes
from now.
Ms. Cullinane?
STATEMENT OF MARY CULLINANE, DIRECTOR OF THE INNNOVATION AND
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TEAM, MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Ms. Cullinane. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon,
members of the committee, my name is Mary Cullinane, and I am
the director of education innovation and business development
for Microsoft. I also bring the perspective of a former
teacher, director of technology, and administrator of a high
school in New Jersey.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
Microsoft's partnership with the school district of
Philadelphia on our work to build a school of the future. The
School of the Future is a unique public/private partnership
initiated in September of 2003 and based on the question``What
if?'' What if a committed school district and surrounding
community, and a leading technology company came together to
design a high school, one that was scaleable, could be
replicated nationwide, built and operated on a standard budget
meeting all state and district requirements?
There exists today in West Philadelphia a 163,000 square
foot high school that is gold LEED certified. My written
testimony details the significant innovations both in the
planning behind the school as well as the structure and
environment that resulted from that process.
We know that learning environments matter. Our attendance
rate is far superior to the district average, our dropout rates
lower and our climate safer.
Yet I should emphasize that from the beginning we never
focused solely on the structure or the gadgets. With an
investment like this, too often the focus can be on the allure
of a new building with shiny windows and the state-of-the-art
technology, believing that improved education will immediately
follow. At Microsoft we fundamentally disagree with this
approach.
Even in a state-of-the-art building, curriculum drives the
technology, not the other way around. What we learned from
building a school of the future is that there is no silver
bullet to education reform. We learned that only rigorous,
strategic planning, systematic and sustained community
involvement, and committed partner engagement will drive
change.
So how did we go about building a school of the future?
First, we determined that our goal, our vision was to build a
learning environment that was continuous, relevant, and
adaptive. While these words may sound simplistic, they are of
tremendous consequence.
Bringing together community stakeholders, including the
district, higher education community, local community, and
civil organizations, students, parents, and representatives
from local businesses we developed the 6i process. This
process: introspection, investigation, inclusion, innovation,
implementation, and then again, introspection guided us through
the entire development.
Learning at the School of the Future is continuous. It is
independent of time and place. Learning at the School of the
Future is relevant to the students through tools used, content
provided, and the environment of the school itself. And then
finally, the learning environment at the school is adaptive.
The School of the Future is a place that adapts to the
individual needs of the learner. It is a place that is flexible
and sustainable.
As a result, our schedule is unusual, our building very
different, and our pedagogy unique. Equally important is that
the school works as an incubator for best practices to make
this project scalable.
Allow me to conclude by offering a few of the critical
lessons and insights we have garnered from this process which
continue today. First, we must encourage deeper, more sustained
public/private partnerships. The problems faced by educators
and learners alike are too big, and the challenges are too many
to expect school districts themselves to build 21st century
learning environments on their own.
Second, we must permit learning communities to innovate.
True innovators will experience success and failure. We must
inspire others to do more than they think we can do. And we
must call on a variety of stakeholders to make this happen.
Third, we must ensure efforts are undertaken within a
rigorous planning process with clearly identified critical
success factors. We must answer essential questions before we
start to build, and we must continue to reflect on these
questions. Our schools should never be finished products.
Is this hard work? Absolutely. But it shouldn't take a
miracle to build a great school in an urban community. Today's
children deserve learning communities that are inspirational,
not just functional. Both governance structures and public
policy should set high standards but then also provide the
resources needed to achieve them.
Members of the committee, I believe we need even more
inspiration in our schools than already exists. We need to fill
district offices, hallways, community centers, neighborhoods
with a sense of hope. We need to communicate a message that we
understand the challenges, but that we are ready to take them
on.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Cullinane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Cullinane, Director of the Innovation &
Business Development Team, Microsoft Corporation
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Members of the Committee,
my name is Mary Cullinane and I am the Director of the Innovation &
Business Development Team in the Education Solutions Group at Microsoft
Corporation. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify
today. Prior to coming to Microsoft, I worked at Union Catholic High
School in New Jersey as a teacher, technology director, and assistant
principal. From 2003 to 2006, I served as project manager for the
School of the Future (SOF), which is located in the western section of
Philadelphia in Fairmount Park and was a joint project of Microsoft
Corporation and the School District of Philadelphia.
I. The Current Environment
Before discussing the School of the Future, I believe it would be
useful to review the current structure of America's education system
which in many ways still reflects the needs of the 19th century, when
the vast majority of students left school after eighth grade and the
`three R's' were adequate for workers to provide for their families. As
we all know, the knowledge economy has long since supplanted the
industrial, and though many institutions in our society have adjusted
rapidly to that change, our educational system--in particular our K-12
education system--has in some ways lagged far behind.
A few points for your consideration: today's average U.S. student
has as many as four or five email accounts and the fastest growing
segment of computer users in the country are children ages five through
seven. For these so-called `digital natives,' knowledge is the key
differentiator--the `three R's' are no longer enough. Though vital,
they are vastly insufficient to ensure success in our economy and our
society. The knowledge economy requires employees who can solve
problems, communicate effectively, and engage in ongoing decision
making utilizing critical thinking skills and an understanding of
complex systems. Those requirements, taken with an accelerating rate of
change, require that we ask, and answer, new and different questions
about our education system. What are the education requirements for the
21st century citizen? What has changed? What needs to change? What
should stay the same? It was in pursuit of answers to these questions
that Microsoft partnered with the School District of Philadelphia to
create the School of the Future.
My testimony today will focus primarily on issues surrounding the
process by which the school was literally built. A great deal could be
said about curriculum and teaching practices, and I am happy to respond
to any questions you may have on those issues, but let me summarize
that aspect of the school by saying that at the School of the Future,
curriculum extends beyond content to everything in the school--
organization, schedules, and even the building itself. Most notably,
the curriculum utilizes a project-based learning model, where learners
are asked to do more than master core skills. They explore their own
ideas and are encouraged to raise questions about project topics and
the best ways to learn about them. In addition, each project is multi-
disciplinary in order to be more relevant to the complex way learning
happens in everyday life. In this model, educators play a very
different role, using an individual approach with each child while
providing support and guidance when it is needed.
A. Microsoft's Commitment: Partners in Learning Program
In 2003, Microsoft established a global initiative known as
Partners in Learning. The goal of this $250 million investment was to
work with governments and Local Education Authorities (LEA) to identify
unique educational challenges that could be addressed through
innovative public/private partnerships.
Partners in Learning aims to leverage the transformative power of
software to create innovative educational experiences that better
connect students and teachers worldwide. Despite real improvements,
many students and teachers still lack basic access to technology and
training. The result is a widening skills gap that contributes to
disparities in quality of life, competitiveness, and economic
development--an issue this Committee has worked diligently to address.
Three key programs within Partners in Learning have helped
educators use technology throughout the learning process in an effort
to enable students to achieve their learning goals. Partners in
Learning's Innovative Schools program delivers expert guidance in
comprehensive school reform and provides a roadmap for technology
integration to help schools meet their education objectives. The
Innovative Teachers program is designed to connect a global community
of educators focused on 21st century learning and to recognize and
reward their exemplary efforts to prepare students for the future.
Finally, the Innovative Students program provides affordable, reliable
software to qualifying governments purchasing Windows-based PCs for
primary and secondary students' personal use at home. As part of the
Microsoft Partners in Learning initiative, the School of the Future is
an important example of our broader corporate commitment to education
today. By providing tools and support we hope to enable educators and
schools to deliver on the promise of technology in education.
II. The Evolution of the School of the Future: Planning and Processes
In 2003, Microsoft was approached by the School District of
Philadelphia's CEO, Paul Vallas, about the district's desire to build a
School of the Future. After discussions with district leaders, both
parties concluded that they could each bring significant value to the
project, and that the process could yield important outcomes and
lessons for the district, the children of Philadelphia, and schools
nationwide. As part of the district's new initiative to reform urban
high schools, the goal of this project was to build and redefine the
`norm' for 9-12 urban education based on the recognition that the
industrial model of education was obsolete. Fundamentally, our hope was
to create a sustainable and replicable model that drove innovation and
excellence in the multiple functions within a school, from business and
administrative processes through the fundamentals of educational
practices. We did not, however, seek to create a school that would only
highlight the inadequacies of the current system. We sought to create a
model process that could be replicated nationwide. With this goal in
mind, the school operates and was built on a standard budget, and meets
all state, district, and labor requirements.
At the core of this initiative lies the belief that by downsizing
high schools to ideally no more than 800 learners, and by upgrading the
level of academic support through non-traditional and innovative
models, students can make greater gains both academically and socially.
Microsoft requested that the school be a reflection of the population
served by the School District of Philadelphia. Therefore, all learners
are selected via the same lottery used for other neighborhood schools
in the system. If a student's name is submitted and selected, that
student is able to attend regardless of their academic or disciplinary
record. Seventy-five percent of SOF students come from the West
Philadelphia neighborhood and 25% from the district as a whole.
In defining the scope of the partnership the question was
immediately raised, ``how much money will Microsoft donate?'' From the
outset, the development team understood that the value of this endeavor
relied on the ability of others to replicate our model both in process
and in outcomes. If Microsoft and our partners simply donated millions
of dollars, others around the country might view the School of the
Future as something to which they could only aspire but not achieve
given resource constraints they might face. We quickly concluded that
the school's funding needed to flow from the system as it was in
Philadelphia, and that those funds needed to be designated within the
district's general school expansion capital plan.
These resource constraints made the planning process, which I will
outline shortly, all the more important. They also highlighted for us
the vital role programs such as the Enhancing Education through
Technology (EETT or ``E2T2'') play in helping school districts overcome
the fiscal challenges that stand in the way of creating 21st century
learning environments. This critical source of federal funding for
public school technology is one that Microsoft strongly supports.
Microsoft's primary commitment to the SOF was that of human
capital. The district had access to Microsoft personnel, as well as
research in areas such as data integration and management,
collaboration and communication, streaming media, organizational
efficiency, and leadership development. By sharing our best practices
and providing insight and access to internal Microsoft resources we
developed a framework for others to follow.
A. School of the Future Development Team
The first critical step was to identify individuals who would be
part of the planning and execution process. This included
representatives from the higher education community, the school
district, Microsoft staff, local community and business leaders,
students and educators. An international advisory board was also
established to provide global relevance and input to the project.
B. The ``6i'' Development Process
Building the School of the Future required a process that would
guide the development team and provide a rigorous framework for
decision making. From this, the `6i' development process was born.
The `6i' development process is the term used to describe the
methodology the SOF development team utilized throughout what were six
major stages of the project. In our view, the `6i' development process
is a useful organizational tool that policymakers at all levels can
utilize as they seek to create learning environments appropriate to
their circumstances and those of their students and educators in their
constituencies.
1. The first stage of the development process was introspection. At
the outset, our development team dealt with issues such as pedagogy,
culture, project benchmarks, and overall success metrics. The
introspection process demanded rigorous and objective self-analysis and
was directed primarily toward identifying existing assets that could be
leveraged by the development team as well as future resources and other
requirements.
2. Next was investigation. This stage was characterized by wide
ranging research and consultation. During this phase of the SOF's
development, the development team researched and identified best
practices across a range of issues identified during the introspection
process in addition to exploring innovations within other educational
models. This process was led by an advisory council of education
experts--including international thought leaders--who were tasked with
reviewing and validating strategies and key decisions.
3. The third stage was inclusion. This critical component of the
SOF's creation saw the development team engage community leaders, key
stakeholders from business, government, and other partners critical to
the success of the School. As part of this stage, we drafted a
community inclusion plan spearheaded by five key groups who were tasked
with nurturing school development and providing organizational support.
i. School Planning Team: This team, formed as part of a preexisting
district practice, served as an advocate for various constituencies
within Philadelphia neighborhoods and helped present the vision and
approved plans for the school to the community at large.
ii. Community Advisory Board: This board, comprising key community
leaders within West Philadelphia, advised the School District of
Philadelphia and Microsoft. This group augmented the School Planning
Team's citywide viewpoint by offering a unique perspective that is
specific to West Philadelphia.
iii. Curriculum Working Committee: Consisting of education experts
from the local district and around the world, this committee worked to
define and develop the school mission in support of district goals,
drove curriculum development, and ensured that all aspects of the
school--from professional assets to physical spaces--supported
curriculum goals.
iv. District Planning Team: Made up of Cabinet-level district
officials, this team set policy and actively governed the
implementation of school development--including budget allocations and
final design plan recommendations--while also serving as a liaison to
the School Reform Commission and Pennsylvania's Department of
Education.
v. School of the Future Advisory Board: Led by national education
leaders and organizational experts, this board reviewed and offered
commentary on strategic plans, provided feedback and insight on design
and development activities, and worked with community inclusion teams.
Through ongoing dialogue with these stakeholders, the development
team sought to drive awareness and understanding in an effort to build
support for the project and to engage the community in a manner
designed to ensure sustained involvement in the life of the School.
4. The fourth stage was innovation. By integrating new ideas into
every element of the process--from building design and information
technology architecture to curriculum development and personnel
selection--the SOF team utilized novel approaches and gained insights
critical to the fifth stage of the development process, the
implementation process. One such innovation was the introduction of a
`competency wheel.' At Microsoft we use a competency wheel to support
both self-guided professional development and the hiring process.
Seeing a need for a similar tool in education, we facilitated the
creation of an education competency wheel.
Another example of our effort to build innovation into the system
was in decisions made about the school's Performing Arts Center, or
Auditorium. Auditoriums, due to their size, are often the most
expensive and least utilized rooms in a school. The development team
sought to make the space more conducive to regular use. So, while the
total capacity of the SOF Performing Arts Center is 450, there are two
round classrooms that rotate on hydraulics and seat approximately 100
individuals each. These provide great flexibility to the space,
allowing for multiple settings depending on the desired learning
environment.
5. Fifth was implementation: Using the first four stages of the
development process, the team oversaw the implementation process
including actual construction of the building, the training of selected
educators and other personnel, and the build-out of the school's
technical architecture. With the addition of a 2nd class in September
2007, another wave of implementation was tackled as new learners and
educators joined the community.
6. Last, we return once again to introspection. The development
team assessed and reviewed outcomes and formally created a plan to
reflect on the execution and ongoing implementation of the overall
strategy. A summit was held after the first year of the school's
operation to review successes and opportunities. This ongoing process
is designed to ensure that the school continues to evolve to meet the
changing needs of its population.
C. Critical Success Factors
As a result of the work within the `6i' process the group
identified and developed what we termed `Critical Success Factors.'
Critical success factors refer to a short list of clearly defined and
agreed upon criteria that would be used to drive resource allocation
decisions. Over the course of a two month planning process, the
development team sought to create a common language--an agreed upon set
of definitions for each critical success factor in order to ensure
clarity and so that rigorous and effective SWOT (Strength--Weakness--
Opportunity--Threat ) analysis could be undertaken during all phases of
the process. The SOF development team identified five critical success
factors.
1. involved and connected learning community
A learning community that is involved and connected acknowledges
that all stakeholders--students, parents, community organizations,
higher education, businesses, and others--must participate if we are to
succeed. The learning community is a dynamic, vibrant society that
incorporates and represents the voices of all constituents. Multiple
means for communicating, sharing information, and soliciting input must
be established. Digital tools and electronic and print media must
support inclusion, eliminating language and socioeconomic barriers.
Finally, the learning community must provide opportunities that promote
learning as a lifelong process.
2. proficient and inviting curriculum-driven setting
The physical setting must support and be conducive to the
continuous and changing needs of the learning community. The technical
infrastructure must support current and future wireless and fixed
technical equipment, and should enable the sharing of all data types.
All learning spaces must provide the necessary elements that allow for
instruction and learning at all times, and be mobile and flexible to
adapt to changes in teaching and learning activities.
3. flexible and sustainable learning environment
A truly effective learning environment is one that is fluid and
responsive to the ever-evolving needs of community members. Such an
environment is adaptable, differentiated, and student-centered,
allowing all students to realize their full potential. The learning
environment must discourage dependency on time and place for
instructional opportunities and must demonstrate instructional
relevancy for students. Also, the environment created must be able to
function independent of changes in faculty and administrative
personnel.
4. cross-curriculum integration of research and development
To ensure a continuously evolving integrated curriculum, the
professional staff, led by the director of research and innovation,
must actively incorporate the latest findings in research and
development from business, technology, and institutions of higher
learning. In addition, the school must act as a learning laboratory,
where staff and students can design, carry-out, and evaluate
appropriate projects to enhance the teaching and learning.
5. professional leadership
Professional leadership for the entire community encompasses the
abilities to:
Positively impact instruction
Think strategically
Motivate and engage stakeholders
Use technology at every appropriate opportunity
Design professional development to address identified
needs
Interact with the community
Demonstrate fiscal responsibility
Continuously evaluate and revise instructional programs in
a collaborative manner
E. Establishing the Vision for the Learning Environment
A critical element of the planning process is being able to answer
a few key questions, in particular, `what are you trying to create and
who are you creating it for?' By rigorously answering these questions,
institutions gain a greater opportunity to build learning environments
that truly support the needs of students in the 21st century. After
going through our introspection and investigation stages, we were
determined to create a learning environment that was:
Continuous
Relevant
Adaptive
These are the core principles, the `non-negotiables,' established
for the project and the principles that drove all resource allocation
decisions. Countless hours were dedicated to discussions surrounding
this vision and during the three years leading up to the school's
opening and since, this concept has proven a powerful tool in
responding to suggestions that deviate from the original vision.
1. continuous
Teaching should not be limited to the classroom alone. SOF is an
environment powered by 1:1 access to the tools of the digital age to
nurture anytime, anywhere learning. For example there was significant
conversation during the construction process around whether to extend
the wireless signal to the outdoor amphitheatre. Many thought the
security issues were too great. However the decision was made that in
order to maintain the `continuous' learning environment--learners
should be able to walk outside the physical building and continue their
work. 2. Relevant Learners are inspired by the connections they make
between curriculum and the real world, so the SOF leverages community
interaction and the latest instructional tools to increase relevance.
One such example occurred in 2007 when a group of learners participated
in a project at the Belmont Mansion, a local historical site that was a
stop on the Underground Railroad, and created the content for public
tours. This experience integrated national and local history, research,
writing, presentation, and technology skills. 3. Adaptive Individual
students learn in individual ways. The SOF is not a one-size-fits-all
offering. Instead, we use technology and adaptive instructional models
to effectively meet the needs of every learner. III. Building the
Learning Environment: Constructing the School The 160,000 square-foot
School of the Future is designated as a 9-12 high school for 800
students. The building includes twenty general classrooms, five science
rooms, art and music rooms, a fitness center, two gymnasiums, an
Interactive Learning Center (media center), food court, special
education spaces, and a Performing Arts Center (auditorium). The
building and gathering areas are designed to promote interaction among
students in on open, less rigid environment. Site orientation has
proven to be a significant factor in the success of the School of the
Future. Three major components were considered when deciding on
location:
Relation to urban/community features
Integration into Fairmount Park/Centennial District Master
Plan
Sustainability
A. Sustainable Architecture
Through energy and day light modeling, the School of the Future is
sited to optimize daylight, energy use, mitigate the urban heat-island
effect, and to ensure optimization of HVAC systems. These features,
along with the thoughtful use of water through the use of Green Roof
and a rain water catchment system, help to reduce the building's impact
on the environment and infrastructure of Philadelphia, and help to
create a learning environment that promotes attendance and enhances
student performance.
The school is LEED Gold Certified--Pennsylvania's first such high
performing high school. The SOF received Gold LEED certification for
the many green components incorporated into its design which over the
life of the building are expected to save over $10M.\1\ Notable
features include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Appendix A for photographic examples of the SOF's
architectural features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Roof over the Performing Arts Center which reduces
the energy needed to cool the space
Regulation of specific airflow and natural light in all
spaces
A water system used to gather rain water for use in
restroom toilets which in conjunction with high efficiency or no-flush
fixtures reduce water use by as much 80%
Ice-cooling air conditioning system that cools air during
non-peak hours and then makes it available during the school day
Photovoltaic window panels that gather sunlight and
convert it into electricity usage for the school
Constructed wetlands designed to eliminate contaminant
run-off from the school grounds
B. Information Technology Architecture
Early on we decided that the School must be focused on teaching and
learning, not technology for its own sake. Although technology plays a
critical role in the creation of a 21st century learning environment,
the development team sought to ensure that technology deployments
adhered to the vision of a continuous, relevant, and adaptive learning
environment. That belief guided decisions on issues ranging from
Internet access to security. The School of the Future was not conceived
as a `Microsoft-centric' institution. Rather, the IT architecture was
built to create a system that was as fully integrative as possible with
the District's legacy systems so as to ensure that the core mission--
creating a continuous, relevant, and adaptive learning environment--
could be achieved.
The School of the Future features a collection of interconnected e-
systems and Web-enabled services to facilitate student records,
classroom management, electronic curriculum, procurement, environmental
management, parental portals, and more. All these new systems required
integration with key existing legacy systems that were often archaic.
The lack of an effective data warehousing repository, the use of
ineffective and `closed' database platforms, problems with database
connectivity and data cleansing, and district-wide difficulties with
data entry and ownership made the insertion of new technologies at
times very difficult.
When the technology services team at the School District of
Philadelphia first set out to imagine, concept, and specify the School
of the Future's IT infrastructure, they knew it would need to be
`future-proof.' Imagining new technologies and how those technologies
will be used in the future is a challenge shaped more by the unknown,
making a focus on flexibility essential. Engineers and educators alike
recognized they were designing a school that would open in 2006--but
one that would need to be ready for 2016. The team effectively needed
to plan 10 years into the future of networking and computing. At the
same time, the team also realized that the school could not exist in a
vacuum. The technologies at work in the School of the Future would have
to align with standards established for all new schools in the district
if they were to realize the vision of testing and evaluating new ideas
in the new school so that other districts would replicate them.
Moreover, the technologies would need to successfully interface with
legacy systems at the district level. The team focused on keeping
maintenance, support, and daily operational costs in check wherever
possible. At the same time, the team carefully inserted `next-
generation' systems and infrastructure into the existing technology
environments.
The design and deployment of IT infrastructure needed to occur
collaboratively alongside the design and construction of the building
itself. To that end, the technology services team worked closely with
the architects commissioned to build the School of the Future,
exchanging ideas and understanding the implications of each group's
design solutions. However, architectural sketches and drawings don't
reveal the intricacies of the building until the school is actually
constructed. So, although technical infrastructure and building
architecture are ideally planned collaboratively and concurrently, the
IT team was tasked with the significant challenge of imagining a fully
finished building while still in the planning stages.
The first meeting of the technology services team was a two hour
brainstorm culminating in a wish list of 100 items for the School of
the Future. During the next meeting, the team anticipated cost concerns
and set out to trim any nonessential items from the wish list. Over the
next few months, as the realities of budget constraints became more
clear, the team weighed the complexities of up-front costs and long-
term operational costs--an exercise that forced them to focus on
elements of the IT infrastructure that were vital to their vision. As
with any other school, the technology team found themselves competing
with advocates for other interests--from athletic facilities to
landscape architecture to kitchen and dining areas. Given the
inevitable budget constraints, the central challenge was not protecting
their interests as technologists but understanding and communicating
how each attribute of their technology plan aligned with the core
functionalities of the school (instructional, operational, and
environmental). In the beginning, there was a blurry line between what
the team wanted and what the team needed. In the end, the budget helped
them focus more clearly on the components of the infrastructure that
are essential to the mission of the school.
IV. Lessons Learned
Lessons large and small were, and continue to be learned as the
School of the Future unfolds. As I mentioned earlier, we are in a near
constant process of assessment and evaluation. It is through this
process that we hope to engage all stakeholders--in particular parents,
educators, and policymakers--in an ongoing but actionable dialogue
about how to provide the learning environment most beneficial to
students. Each of the many lessons we learned were important and
continue to shape the work being done at the school, but I would like
to highlight several points that I think can help you as you seek to
drive change and innovation in learning environments across our nation.
Our current systems do not support innovation
To create truly innovative learning environments that will support
learning in the 21st century, greater support, resources, flexibility,
and vision must be provided to districts.
Imagine if, in our schools, innovation was swimming downstream.
Imagine how much further we could travel and how much faster we could
get there. Unfortunately, in urban education, this is far from the
case. In urban education, innovation is swimming upstream, encountering
tides of policy and practice that slow its pace and prevent it from
moving forward. And for those taking the trip: swimming upstream is
tiring. In the past, the Federal Government has provided support for
basic infrastructure through, for example, the `e-rate' and the E2T2
programs and by other means. These programs have proven critical to
ensuring our schools are able to at least access the power of
technology. But, as I mentioned earlier, technology for its own sake
misses the point. The Federal government should now seek to build on
the success of basic infrastructure programs to drive support for
innovative learning models so that the true power of technology can be
leveraged by students and educators. We remain strong supporters of the
E2T2 program, but we believe by supporting greater risk taking and
innovation in school reform initiatives, the Federal Government can
help school districts drive change on every level--from architecture to
curriculum.
True reform takes time
Constructing new buildings, providing technology, creating new
visions, and sticking to a rigorous process, are activities that alone
will never ensure success or provide true transformation. For such an
outcome to occur, communities and government organizations must
recognize such reform will not happen overnight. The learners attending
the School of the Future have had eight previous years of a different
learning environment, to expect immediate change after a foundation of
challenge is not realistic and we must set expectations and create
systems that will support long term outcomes rather than short term
gains.
Learning communities must consist of the ENTIRE community in
substantive ways.
When building new learning environments we must encourage
organizations to reach outside of their immediate systems and include a
variety of stakeholders in the design, implementation, and day-to-day
activities in order for reform and growth to be significant and
sustainable.
We at Microsoft are committed to the school's success. But our hope
was to create something that could truly drive change and innovation in
the way we educate all of our children, not just the 800 learners
fortunate enough to be selected for the School of the Future via
lottery. Early on we determined that part of our success measurement
would revolve around the extent we were able to ensure that the lessons
we learned were available to educators worldwide. Since our goal was to
create a new norm for high school education, we have sought to provide
tools and resources that schools and school districts nationwide and
indeed globally, can utilize so that similar initiatives can be
undertaken elsewhere. This effort is well underway and is detailed on
our website www.microsoft.com/education/sof, but let me highlight some
of the specific resources available to educators across the country and
around the globe. They include:
So-called `Discovery briefs' that detail the 6i strategic
planning process, our approach to building design, and to curriculum
formulation
Training videos on the 6i development process and
education competency wheel
A documentary and resource kit showcasing multiple
perspectives on the School of the Future
Information about quarterly briefings at which educators
can participate in interactive workshops regarding the creation of the
SOF
A worldwide initiative, the Innovative Schools Program,
which uses the School of the Future approach and aims to create 12
regional examples of the best in schooling
These are but of few of the ways the lessons we continue to learn
from the School are being shared and members of the Microsoft team
would be pleased to provide additional information.
V. Conclusion
Building the SOF brought many challenges; some more significant
than others. At critical points our ability to not only identify the
person who could remove the obstacle, but also have a pre-existing
relationship with them, was essential. I can't imagine what I would
have done without the support and responsiveness of district leaders.
It shouldn't take a miracle to build a great school in an urban
community. It should not be an exhausting experience, leaving
participants tired and frustrated. We need more agile learning
organizations. We need to determine the correct balance between control
and creativity. We need to create an environment that is inspirational,
not just functional. We need governance structures and public policy
that set high standards, but also provides the resources to achieve
them. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and Members of this
Committee, I believe we need even more inspiration in our schools than
already exists. We need to fill district offices, hallways, community
centers, and neighborhoods with a sense of hope. We need to communicate
a message that we not only understand the challenges, but that we are
ready to take them on.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Dr. Vincent, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PAULA VINCENT, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, CLEAR
CREEK AMANA CSD
Ms. Vincent. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and
members of the committee, I am Paula Vincent, superintendent of
schools in Clear Creek Amana, Iowa. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment today on the experience at our school
district and the experiences we have had with a small amount of
federal dollars supporting our infrastructure improvements.
We are a school district of just under 1,450 students,
although I would say in Iowa we are about the same size or
larger than a majority of the districts in our state. Federal
support for school infrastructure projects has impacted our
communities in several noteworthy ways. I would like to visit
with you this morning about three of those that I think are
most significant.
These areas are public support for education, student
achievement, and energy conservation. I will begin with the
impact that federal support has had on the public in our area
with regard to support for our public schools.
We were fortunate in 2006 to receive what we fondly refer
to as one of the Iowa demonstration construction grants. This
grant was for $.5 million. It was a program that was proposed
by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and began in 1998.
Subsequently Congress authorized allocations annually with
the final grant period ending in 2008. The purpose of this
grant program was twofold. One was to help school districts
with fire safety improvement and the other to help schools
leverage local dollars to construct new schools or to modernize
existing buildings.
The Iowa Department of Education administered this
competitive grant process and required a 75 percent local
match. We believe the modest $.5 million from the Harkin grant
was extremely helpful to our district in passing a $25.5
million bond issue.
Not only did we pass this issue the first time out, but we
had tremendous voter support, breaking our own previous voter
record. In Iowa this is not a small feat as we are subject to a
super-majority for any bond referendums and require 60 percent
approval.
As we visited with our community following that successful
bond issue, one of the key factors that came up over and over
in our conversations was the impact of the federal dollars. And
we believe this was a critical factor in our success.
Not only were we able to secure funds to build two new
schools, but the funding has led to increased partnerships in
our communities. For example, the city of North Liberty
provided the land for our new elementary school, provided the
streets to lead to the new school, and it also brought all of
the utilities to our school property. They also asked to
partner with us in shared gym space and provided an additional
$.5 million for this purpose.
Likewise, the city of Tiffin and the Iowa Department of
Transportation are partnering with us to widen the U.S. highway
that runs in front of our new high school. Using conservative
estimates, this $.5 million from federal support leveraged an
additional $28 million in our school district.
And while we know that having new buildings is an exciting
thing and these schools are currently under construction in our
district, what really matters is student achievement. And that
is the point of my second section of comments.
A growing body of research has linked student learning and
their behavior as well as staff morale to the physical
building. Several studies, which I have included in my written
comments, would comment that as much as a 14 percent
improvement in student achievement can occur when you have
adequate school facilities. I will highlight just a couple of
those here today.
A study in the District of Columbia school system found
when you control for other student factors such as social and
economic status, students' standardized achievement scores were
lower in schools with poor building conditions. For example,
students that had the poorest conditions achieved 6 percent
below those who were in buildings that had fair conditions, and
a full 11 percent point difference between poor condition
schools and those with excellent conditions.
Another study that I would highlight comes from Georgia, a
more recent study. And in this study they attributed the
quality of school design to a 14.2 percent percentile
difference on the Iowa test of basic skills. These are
certainly incredible changes in achievement and worthy of our
attention.
Not only do we have studies that support the role of
quality facilities on buildings and student achievement, but
also on teaching. Many of you would be aware that the teacher
is the most significant factor in student achievement outside
of home factors.
And, in fact, in one study that I will highlight,
researcher Jerry Lowe interviewed state teachers of the year to
determine which aspect of the physical environment affected
teaching the most. These teachers pointed to the availability
and quality of classroom equipment and furnishings as well as
ambient features such as climate control, acoustics as the most
important environmental factors affecting their teaching.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Vincent, I am going to ask you if you
could wrap up, please.
Ms. Vincent. Thank you. In summary, I would just like to
comment that modest amounts of federal dollars can lead to
tremendous impacts and partnerships with communities, can build
environments that our students can achieve in, and can bring
factors of energy conservation to our schools, which are direly
needed.
We have experienced a significant benefit in Iowa, and we
have every reason that our nation's schools can receive the
same benefit from modest federal investment. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment today.
[The statement of Ms. Vincent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paula J. Vincent, Ph.D., Superintendent of
Schools, Clear Creek Amana CSD
A View from a Rural Iowa School District
Honorable Chairman Miller and Committee Representatives, I am Paula
Vincent, Superintendent of the Clear Creek Amana Community School
District. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the experience
our school district has had as a result of receiving federal funds to
support school infrastructure improvements. We are a small, mostly
rural, school district of about 1450 students, located in east central
Iowa. Federal supports for school infrastructure projects have impacted
our communities in several noteworthy ways. Three areas have had a
significant effect and are the subject of my remarks today: 1) public
support for education, 2) student achievement, and 3) energy
conservation.
Public Support
I will begin my comments with the impact federal support for school
facilities has had on public support for education in our district.
Clear Creek Amana was fortunate to receive one of The Iowa
Demonstration Construction Grants for $500,000 in 2006. This grant
program was proposed by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa in 1998.
Subsequently, the grant became known as the Harkin Grants with
Congress authorizing annual allocations of $10,000,000, $9,249,813,
$9,000,000, $50,000,000, $6,954,499, $6,958,699, and $14,880,000, with
grant periods running through September 30, 2008. The purpose of this
grant program was to help school districts correct fire safety problems
and to help school districts leverage local resources to construct new
schools or modernize existing buildings. The Iowa Department of
Education administered this competitive grant process, requiring a
seventy-five percent local match for any dollars awarded.
We believe the receipt of the half million dollar Harkin grant was
helpful to our district in successfully passing a twenty-five and a
half million dollar general obligation bond referendum to build two new
schools. In Iowa, school districts must receive a super majority (sixty
percent approval) to pass any bond issues. Our community did not have a
history of passing bond referendums for school improvement prior to
this latest attempt and had never passed a bond referendum on the first
vote. Not only did the community approve the bond referendum on the
first vote, but also broke previous voter turnout records. The federal
support was one of the factors members of our community listed as a
reason they voted in favor of the proposed bond referendum.
The positive success of the bond referendum led to additional
community support from cities within the school district boundaries.
For example, the City of North Liberty provided land for the new
elementary school, street and utility access to the construction site
and an additional half million dollars toward the construction of the
new elementary school. Likewise, the City of Tiffin and the Iowa
Department of Transportation are partnering with the district to widen
the highway leading to the new high school. Using conservative
estimates, the half million dollars of federal support leveraged an
additional twenty-eight million dollars to improve the school
facilities within the Clear Creek Amana District.
Student Achievement
While it is exciting to have new schools under construction in our
district, we all know that what really matters is the effect on student
achievement. A growing body of research has linked student learning and
behavior, as well as staff morale, to physical building conditions. In
fact, several studies have attributed as much as a 5 to 14 percentage
point difference in achievement on standardized tests between students
in facilities with poor conditions and students in facilities with
excellent conditions.
What the Research Says about School Facilities
The Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) compiled a summary of
research addressing the impact of school facilities on student learning
and concluded that good facilities appear to be important to student
learning. A summary of this research is provided below.
Impact on Student Learning
A study of the District of Columbia school system found,
after controlling for other variables such as a student's socioeconomic
status, that students' standardized achievement scores were lower in
schools with poor building conditions. Students in school buildings in
poor condition had achievement that was 6 percent below schools in fair
condition and 11 percent below schools in excellent condition.
(Building Conditions, Parental Involvement and Student Achievement in
the D.C. Public School System, Maureen M. Edwards, Georgetown
University, 1992)
Another study examined the relationship between building
condition and student achievement in small, rural Virginia high
schools. Student scores on achievement tests, adjusted for
socioeconomic status, were found to be as much as 5 percentile points
lower in buildings with lower quality ratings. Achievement also
appeared to be more directly related to cosmetic factors than to
structural ones. Poorer achievement was associated with specific
building condition factors such as substandard science facilities, air
conditioning, locker conditions, classroom furniture, more graffiti,
and noisy external environments. (A Study of the Relationship Between
School Building Condition and Student Achievement and Behavior, Carol
Cash, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993)
Similarly, a study of large, urban high schools in
Virginia also found a relationship between building condition and
student achievement. Indeed, the researcher found that student
achievement was as much as 11 percentile points lower in substandard
buildings as compared to above-standard buildings. (Building Condition
and Student Achievement and Behavior, Eric Hines, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 1996)
A study of North Dakota high schools, a state selected in
part because of its relatively homogeneous, rural population, also
found a positive relationship between school condition (as measured by
principals' survey responses) and both student achievement and student
behavior. (Review of Research on the Relationship Between School
Buildings, Student Achievement and Student Behavior, Glen Earthman,
Council of Educational Facility Planners, International, 1995)
A recent study of 24 elementary schools in Georgia
attributed quality of school design to a 14.2 percent difference in
third grade achievement scores and a 9.7 percent difference in fifth
grade achievement scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
(Relationship of School Design to Academic Achievement of Elementary
School Children, University of Georgia, 2000)
Heating and air conditioning systems appeared to be very
important, along with special instructional facilities (such as science
laboratories or equipment) and color and interior painting, in
contributing to student achievement. Proper building maintenance was
also found to be related to better attitudes and fewer disciplinary
problems in one cited study. (``Facilities,'' by Carroll McGuffey, in
Improving Educational Standards and Productivity, edited by Herbert
Walberg, 1982)
Research 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
age 10, are more vulnerable than adults to the types of contaminants
(asbestos, radon, and formaldehyde) found in some school facilities
(Environmentally Related Health Hazards in the Schools, James Andrews
and Richard Neuroth, paper presented to Association of School Business
Officials International, 1988).
A research summary prepared by the University of Georgia
in 1999 indicates several studies that show that adequate lighting and
appropriate color choices play a significant role in the achievement of
students, affecting their ability to interpret the written word and
their attention span. (Summary by Elizabeth Jago and Ken Tanner,
University of Georgia, April 1999, www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdpl.html)
Impact on Teaching
Researcher Jerry Lowe interviewed state teachers of the
year to determine which aspects of the physical environment affected
their teaching the most. These teachers pointed to the availability and
quality of classroom equipment and furnishings, as well as ambient
features such as climate control and acoustics as the most important
environmental factors. In particular, the teachers emphasized that the
ability to control classroom temperature is crucial to the effective
performance of both students and teachers. (The Interface between
Educational Facilities and Learning Climate, Jerry M. Lowe, Texas A&M
University, 1990)
A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded
that ``physical conditions have direct positive and negative effects on
teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in
the classroom, and on the general learning environment.'' Building
renovations in one district led teachers to feel ``a renewed sense of
hope, of commitment, a belief that the district cared about what went
on that building.'' In dilapidated buildings in another district, the
atmosphere was punctuated more by despair and frustration, with
teachers reporting that leaking roofs, burned out lights, and broken
toilets were the typical backdrop for teaching and learning.
The study also found that ``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.'' (Working in Urban Schools, Thomas Corcoran et al.,
Institute of Educational Leadership, 1988)
Note: Adapted from Impact of Inadequate School Facilities on
Student Learning, U.S. Department of Education, 1999. Originally
published in the IASB Compass, Volume VII, No. 1, Winter/Spring 2002
New Facility Impact at Clear Creek Amana
Having resources to build new buildings allowed us to take
advantage of the latest information regarding excellent school design.
With the assistance of our architects and engineers and the cooperation
of students, staff and community members we are confident that our new
schools will provide improved learning environments for CCA students
and staff. A few of our design features include:
increased student and staff access to technology;
updated science labs and equipment;
flexible teaching and learning spaces with planned areas
for small and large group instruction;
common areas for teacher teams to plan, and study
together;
shared school and community spaces such as preschool,
library/media center, physical fitness areas, before and after school
space and shared gym space;
and added safety features such as controlled building
access with limited exterior door entry points, electronic door
controls and sprinkler systems.
Again, federal support through the school construction grants
played a key role in making these improvements to the overall safety
and quality of the learning environment in our schools possible.
Energy Conservation
Finally, I will provide information regarding the positive results
our new school construction projects will have on environmental
concerns. We were able to incorporate multiple energy saving features
into the design of the new buildings by participating in the Commercial
New Construction Program provided by the Weidt Group (Minnetonka,
Minnesota) and funded by the local utility companies. As a part of this
program, the district was able to consider various energy design
strategies while the buildings were being planned. The different energy
strategies were bundled together to create virtual buildings. Each
virtual building model was run through a computer simulation that
estimated the energy use of the building as a whole during a weather-
normalized year and the results were compared to the same building as
if it were building under the basic code standards. The data provided
illustrated which strategies could offer the most savings in dollars,
KWh and therms and the payback associated with each strategy.
Using this information, we were able to select energy strategies
that balanced energy efficiency with short term and long term costs.
Some of the strategies we selected include natural lighting in all
classrooms, geo-thermal heating and cooling, motion sensors for room
lights, and highly rated insulation materials for the roofs, walls and
windows. The selected energy strategies in our new buildings resulted
in building performance models with a predicted 65% energy improvement
compared with basic code standards
The benefits of building an energy efficient building include a
cash rebate from the utility companies of about $250,000 as well as
lower operational costs for the lifetime of the new buildings. Many of
the selected energy strategies also contribute to the quality of the
learning environment (natural lighting, temperature controls in each
classroom). We believe these energy-efficient strategies add
significant investment value to the buildings and minimize many
negative environmental impacts typically caused by new construction.
In summary, we have experienced a significant benefit from a modest
federal investment in school infrastructure. We have every reason to
believe our students will benefit from the improved learning
environment in our new schools and we expect we will see some of this
benefit in higher student achievement. Higher achievement by our
nation's children ultimately translates to a brighter future for all of
us when these children take their place as contributing members of the
workforce and of the educated citizenry essential for a democratic
society.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Now we will hear from Superintendent Paul Vallas of the
Recovery School District. Superintendent Vallas, can you hear
me?
Mr. Vallas. Good morning. Yes, I can.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Proceed as you are most comfortable.
And we can see you here.
Mr. Vallas. Well, thank you. Well, thank you so much. Can
you hear me?
Chairman Miller. Yes, we can. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PAUL VALLAS, SUPERINTENDENT, NEW ORLEANS RECOVERY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Vallas. Okay. Well, first of all, let me start out by
thanking Chairman Miller for his leadership on the RENEWAAL
appropriation, which has been critically important to us
incenting teachers to come here and to locate in New Orleans.
We have been able to exceed our demand for teachers and at the
same time, reduce class sizes. And again, we want to thank your
leadership and the support of Congress.
Let me welcome you all from New Orleans. I am joined by
Quincy Jones, a tenth grade student who is going to take up a
little bit of my time to make some comments and observations.
Let me start out by saying I am speaking to you from Reed
High School, which is one of 59 schools that are part of the
Recovery School District of Louisiana, where I have the honor
of serving as superintendent. Building schools is not easy.
While superintendent in Chicago, we oversaw the building of 76
new schools and the renovations of 350 schools for 6 years.
In Philadelphia, we oversaw a school construction program
of $1.7 billion, which included 14 new schools and the renowned
Microsoft School of the Future. And it is nice to see Mary
Cullinane, as always, in good form.
In both Chicago and Philadelphia we were able to accomplish
much with limited resources, well over 80 percent of both
constructions were funded locally. The state of Illinois had a
growing, state-funded school construction program. The state of
Pennsylvania had a much smaller program. But only a fraction of
the funding for both programs came in the form of federal
support.
When I arrived in New Orleans in July of last year, we had
a great challenge before us. We estimated that the cost of
Katrina-related damages to the school district's 106 school
facilities--let me point out that 90 percent of the buildings
could not be occupied or were in need of major renovation. But
even with the most optimistic estimates, we felt that the
district would run about $500 million short of what would be
needed to completely replace the schools, build new schools,
renovate existing schools.
Let me point out that while a lot of that was due to
Katrina-related damages, there was also well over $1 billion in
deferred maintenance costs, which obviously added to the burden
of revitalizing the district. And I do want to point out that
our relationship with FEMA has been excellent. And FEMA has
been extraordinarily cooperative as well as innovative at
helping us secure the capital reimbursements in a timely manner
so that we could begin to rebuild our buildings. So I certainly
want to give that note of support.
We have had to open up 59 traditional public and charter
schools since 2005 using large rebuilding fund reimbursements
from FEMA as well as federal Community Development Block Grant
money. It is important to note that in the RSD, half of our
schools are charters. And we provide school construction
support for charters and traditional public schools,
irrespective.
It does not matter. We are a system of schools--rather than
a school system. And we probably have a higher percentage of
children in charter schools and privately managed schools than
any other school district in the country. So we do not view
charter schools as independent to the school system, but as
part of our overall school design.
Now, let me point out that to date we have spent $132
million in FEMA funding on school construction and about $15
million from Community Development Block Grant money, in
addition to $54 million in operating funds in order to get our
buildings rebuilt and up and running.
Now, there are eight modular facilities fully funded by
FEMA that will temporarily serve our students as we rebuild
their permanent schools to replace the modular schools. Let me
point out that the district has embarked upon the development
of a facilities master planning program that will present its
results or present its recommendations in May. And that plan is
designed to identify needs of the district and to lay out ways
that the long-term needs could be addressed through additional
measures.
But even that plan itself will probably come about 40 to 50
percent short in terms of generating the necessary funds to
replace all obsolete buildings and all damaged buildings and to
obviously build schools where schools need to be built. But the
plan will be finalized by May.
But in order to get things jumpstarted, we have actually
begun our work with FEMA secured instruments--to what we call
our quick start program starting construction of five new
schools, which we will break ground on or have broken ground on
in a couple months. So the master plan is being finalized. But
at least a component of that master plan, the quick start plan,
is well underway.
Let me point out that despite the limitations in our
facilities, the use of modular classrooms, we have made a
priority of investing in the individual classrooms as opposed
to realizing it is going to take 4 or 5, 6 years to replace and
to renovate all the buildings and to secure enough money to do
that. Hopefully we will be able to do that. We did make it a
priority this year to really concentrate on classroom
modernization, on creating a classroom environment that was
equal, if not superior, to that of even the more affluent
suburbs.
As Mary Cullinane likes to talk about the high school of
the future, in our conversations we have often talked about
creating the classroom of the future. So I am happy to point
out that this year when we opened schools, while the buildings
were limited, while the facilities were limited, while we have
many, many modular campuses, all of our classrooms are superior
learning environments. What do I mean by that?
They were all painted and air conditioned. They all had
modern furniture, modern textbooks. They all had standardized
curriculum instructional models--every high school had
Promethean boards installed and smart boards in every 4th
through 12th grade core classroom. Installing 180 computer labs
in the middle grades--4th through 10th grades. And all of our
high school students have laptop computers.
So we really worked to integrate technology to modernize
our classrooms. So even though we have limited ability, we have
limited facilities, when you walked into that classroom
environment--we just didn't put technology into the classroom--
--
Chairman Miller. Superintendent Vallas, if I could----
Mr. Vallas [continuing]. Give teachers access to--integrate
the technology into the classroom, enhance student learning,
and provide students with a way to learn, a way to take in data
in more visual and more audio ways. It also expanded school
choice because we are dramatically increasing the number of
course offerings despite our limitations and despite the small
sizes of our high schools by, in effect, using----
Chairman Miller. Superintendent Vallas, can you hear me?
Mr. Vallas. And the technology is also helping us connect
the family, because an ever-increasing number of our families
now have home computers and laptop computers. And, of course,
when you give all your high school----
[The statement of Mr. Vallas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Vallas, Superintendent, New Orleans Recovery
School District
Thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee today from Reed
High School, here in New Orleans East, a neighborhood in New Orleans
that received more than 10 feet of floodwaters in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.
Reed is one of the 59 schools of the Recovery School District,
where I have the honor of serving as Superintendent. Thank you for
meeting today to discuss the important issue of school construction and
classroom modernization.
Building schools is not easy. While I was Superintendent in
Chicago, we oversaw the building of 76 new school buildings and
renovated 350 schools over six years. In Philadelphia, we built eight
new schools, including the renowned Microsoft School of the Future.
In both Chicago and Philadelphia, we were able to accomplish much
with limited resources, specifically tax and bond revenues used to fund
school construction.
When I arrived in New Orleans in the summer of 2007, it became very
clear to me early on that building schools here is a tremendous
challenge--we have an unheard of amount of work to do and a small
amount of money to do it with. And this money does not come from
traditional capital fund sources, but primarily from FEMA.
Currently, we estimate the cost of Katrina-related damages to the
district's 106 school facilities and their contents will exceed $700
million once FEMA completes its full and updated assessments. On top of
the costs of storm damage, prior to Katrina, New Orleans public school
facilities already had approximately $1 billion in deferred
maintenance.
The RSD rebuilt its 59 traditional public and charter schools
beginning in late 2005 using rebuilding funds from FEMA and federal
Community Development Block Grant funding. It is important to note that
in the RSD, we have the highest percentage of charter schools of any
urban school district, and in facilities maintenance and building
schools we make no distinction between charter and RSD-operated
schools.
The RSD has spent more than $132 million in FEMA funding, more than
$15 million in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding, and more than $53.5 million in operating funding during this
effort to rebuild the district's schools.
Among our schools, there are eight modular facilities fully funded
by FEMA that will temporarily serve our students as we rebuild their
permanent schools.
As we move forward, we plan to build additional schools in New
Orleans. Our ``Quickstart'' effort is a $140 million initiative,
principally funded by FEMA, with construction currently underway to
bring online an additional five new schools by fall 2009.
Our facilities master plan, which will guide the rebuilding and
renovation of permanent public school facilities in New Orleans, will
be released in May 2008.
Our students attend class in improved school facilities, use humane
restrooms, enjoy hot food, and use the most modern technology-based
instructional tools available.
Despite our past victories and future plans, however, our struggles
remain substantial.
While the approximately $90 million in CDBG rebuilding funds
allocated by the State of Louisiana are substantial--and our
cooperative work with FEMA has yielded significant dividends--we will
not bring our school facilities to more superior condition with these
funds alone.
In fact, even when combined, our anticipated total obligated FEMA
funds and our CDBG funds will still leave our district more than $500
million short of being able to bring our facilities up to superior
condition.
Despite our fiscal constraints, we are aggressively using the
unique opportunity of rebuilding school facilities in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina to build the best facilities this district has ever
had.
And this effort includes a superior level of classroom
modernization previously unheard of in New Orleans. Among such upgrades
include:
Installing a Promethean Board in every 4th-12th grade core
classroom, a total of 496 boards in RSD-operated schools;
Providing a take-home Epic laptop computer to every high
school student, a total of approximately 4,500 laptops;
Providing a take-home Dell laptop computer to every
teacher and administrator, a total of approximately 2,000 laptops;
Installing Read 180 computer labs, with eight computers
each, in every 4th-10th grade English classroom, a total of 132 new
computer labs;
Installing e-Rate funded internet access in all of our
schools, both wireless and LAN connections.
Next year we plan to expand the distribution of laptops to the
middle grades, give all students email addresses, build a virtual
school for students throughout the state out of Reed High School, and
employ a technology integrationist at all schools focused solely on
helping teachers integrate technology into instructional practices.
Twenty-first Century educators know that it is not about the
hardware and software--or the basic training it takes to use them in
the classroom--that create 21st Century learners. It is instead the
innovative uses of these products by teachers that push students to
build strong literacy skills and engage in higher levels of learning.
To encourage these teaching practices the RSD is taking steps to:
1) Ensure that technology is used to establish a relationship
between the home and school environments;
3) Use technology to enrich parental involvement in the school
community;
4) Create small teaching and learning communities at each school
where the integration of technological approaches to teaching and
learning are discussed and encouraged;
5) Setting up student-organized and managed Technology Resource
Centers at each of our high schools.
Technology improves students' academic achievement because it
enables self-directed learning and provides immediate benchmarking
data. The vast majority of our students are two or more years below
grade level in reading and math, and these students benefit from the
district's technological interventions.
We can only continue our monumental efforts to reform education in
New Orleans with further federal resources to cover significant start-
up and one-time costs.
Just like RENEWAAL funding last year helped the district to attract
hundreds of high-quality teachers by allowing us to pay all teachers
bonuses and launch a performance-based pay initiative, we need federal
funding in New Orleans to sustain our efforts to build 21st Century
schools to continue sparking the rebuilding of the New Orleans region.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify to the committee today and
I am happy to answer any questions.
______
Chairman Miller. This is better than I thought. If
Superintendent Vallas can hear me, I want to thank him for his
testimony. We are running a series of votes here in the
Congress, and I would like to get our next two witnesses in
before members of the panel have to leave.
And we are having a little bit of trouble with the audio on
this end. Ms. Cullinane is going to take care of that during
the break, and we will get a Congress of the future here. But I
don't want to have Superintendent Vallas wait around because of
the vote.
So with that, we are going to proceed, Mr. Waters, to you.
STATEMENT OF JIM WATERS, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS,
BLUEGRASS INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTIONS
Mr. Waters. Very good. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Greetings from Kentucky where celebrations are
underway commemorating the birth of the--the bicentennial of
the birth of our nation's 16th president. My name is Jim
Waters. I am director of Policy and Communications for the
Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions.
We like to describe ourself as Kentucky's free market think
tank. We offer free market ideas to Kentucky's most pressing
problems in light of the ideals that we think our founders had
who believed in individual liberty, economic prosperity,
personal responsibility, and a respect for the lives and
property of others. And with all due respect to the Congressman
Chandler from Kentucky, I do not believe that the founders
would have been involved in more federal involvement in our
education system at the state and local level.
The prevailing wage law provides an example, I think, of a
well-intentioned policy that has gone awry. Originally modeled
after the federal Davis-Bacon Act, Kentucky lawmakers also
wanted to ensure that contractors and workers on state
projects, that they received a fair, but not a rock bottom
wage. However, during the past decades, Kentucky's prevailing
wage law, which is based largely on the federal policy of the
same idea, has become a huge boondoggle.
And I would like to suggest that before the federal
government gets more involved in spending more of our hard-
earned dollars on repairing school buildings and building new
schools we at least need to consider more market participation
in the education process, more choices for parents, for
students, for local communities, for states to make their own
decisions about how to address their needs for new school
buildings and to repair crumbling schools.
The law prevents state government from receiving the most
value for every dollar spent on public projects in Kentucky.
Forcing the government to pay union-like wages drives up the
cost of roads, school buildings, and infrastructure systems by
a very conservative 10 to 15 percent.
In recent weeks, a bid was accepted for $61 million to
build a new middle and high school in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
It is the Joseph Warren--it will be the Joseph Warren Middle
and High School. Research commissioned by the Bluegrass
Institute has found that the negative trickle-down effect of
Davis-Bacon in states like Kentucky has driven up the cost of
public projects by hundreds of millions of dollars. Our own
legislative research commission, which is a non-partisan
research arm of our legislature, says it added $137 million to
the cost of public projects, construction projects in the year
of 2002.
Even our department of education officials, which aren't
known for enthusiastic support of fiscally sound policies,
recognize and really despise our state's prevailing wage
policy. The department claims that prevailing wage requirements
add 11 percent to the cost of building schools.
That would mean that the new school in Bowling Green will
cost an additional $6.7 million just because of the prevailing
wage rate alone. That would be enough to build another new
elementary school even at prevailing wage rates.
There is no question as we have heard today, our schools
are crumbling. Many of our states' proverbial checkbooks are
overdrawn. And yet plumbers and pipe fitters for this new
Warren school are going to get $41.35 an hour.
I checked with an experienced contractor in the region who
bid on the project but couldn't keep up with those rates. He
said that workers would receive a rate of about $18 an hour on
a similar job in the private sector. But the gap in wages, the
$100 million estimate, doesn't even include the cost of the
labor bureaucracy charged with overseeing our prevailing wage
policy.
What is the cost for inspections, hearings, and paperwork?
Who knows? We see how easy it is for government to spend
someone else's money, the taxpayers' money, with little
accountability for how that money is spent.
And in our labor cabinet's prevailing wage categories for
Warren County it states that water boys get $18.07 an hour and
$8.79 in benefits. So water boys--and that is how they are
listed--working on the Warren schools will get paid more than
the usual rate earned by experienced, professional plumbers
working on homes, offices, and churches.
A favored defense of maintaining prevailing wage borne out
of the desperate days of the Great Depression is that
prevailing wage rates result in safer, higher quality work. But
this thinking is outmoded and antiquated just like the Davis-
Bacon Act itself.
According to the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission,
96 percent of Kentucky's 176 school superintendents answered no
when asked if they increased cost incurred by prevailing wage
resulted in discernible higher quality. Besides, how is it that
contractors build quality office complexes, large custom homes,
investment properties, and corporate facilities without being
coerced by some kind of forced wage policy? These contractors
don't even have to be told the quantity and quality of people
needed to accomplish a task.
But many contractors don't even participate in public
projects in Kentucky. Prevailing wage rates are so complicated,
vary widely from place to place, are established according to
federal rates in some areas, state rates in others, and can be
at the whims of even local unions that it is too daunting for
many private contractors. We believe that an increase in
participation in the process would drive down the cost of
public projects.
In order to free up badly needed money to build new schools
and repair and update existing ones, it is time for Davis-Bacon
and prevailing wage to be relegated to the history of public
policies that have long outlived their usefulness either to
schools or taxpayers. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Waters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Waters, Director of Policy and
Communications, Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Greetings from Kentucky, where celebrations got underway earlier
this week, commemorating the 200th birthday of the nation's 16th
president.
My name is Jim Waters. I am director of policy and communications
at the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Kentucky's
free-market think tank. We offer free-market ideas to Kentucky's most
pressing problems in light of the ideals of our founders, who believed
in: individual liberty, economic prosperity, personal responsibility
and a respect for the lives and property of others.
The ``prevailing wage'' law provides an example of a well-
intentioned policy gone awry. Originally modeled after the federal
Davis-Bacon Act, Kentucky lawmakers wanted to ensure contractors
working on state projects paid workers a fair, but not rock-bottom,
wage.
However, during the past 20 years, Kentucky's prevailing-wage
policy has become a huge boondoggle.
The law prevents state government from receiving the most value for
every dollar spent on public projects. Forcing government to pay union-
like wages drives up the cost of roads, school buildings and
infrastructure systems by 10 to 15 percent.
In recent weeks, a bid was accepted for $61 million to the new
Joseph Warren middle and high schools in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Research commissioned by the Bluegrass Institute and conducted by
experts like respected labor analyst Paul Kersey, has concluded that
the negative, trickle-down effect of Davis-Bacon drives up the cost of
public projects by as much as $100 million each year.
Even Kentucky Department of Education officials, which aren't
exactly known for endorsing fiscally sound policies, recognize--and
despise--the state's prevailing-wage policy. The department claims
prevailing-wage requirements adds 11 percent to the cost of building
schools--$6.7 million on the Warren County schools project alone. That
would be enough to build another new elementary school, even at
prevailing-wage rates!
Schools are crumbling. The state's proverbial budget checkbook is
overdrawn. Yet plumbers and pipe fitters for the new Warren middle and
high schools are going to get $41.35 an hour. I checked with an
experienced contractor in the region, who said these workers would
receive a rate of about $18 an hour on a similar job in the private
sector.
But the gap in wages--the $100-million estimate--does not even
include the cost of the labor bureaucracy charged with overseeing
Kentucky's prevailing-wage policy. What is the cost for inspections,
hearings and paperwork? Who knows? We see how easy it is for government
to spend someone else's money--taxpayer--with little accountability for
how that money is spent.
On Page 4 of the state Labor Cabinet's prevailing-wage categories
for Warren County, it states that ``water boys'' get $18.07 an hour and
$8.79 in benefits. So ``water boys'' working on the Warren schools get
paid more than the usual rate earned by experienced, professional
plumbers working on homes, office buildings and churches.
Just to put this in perspective, this weekend, the Holiday Inn
University Plaza--the premier convention-center hotel in Bowling Green,
Kentucky--will host 1,200 people who will use four of its luxury-laden
ballrooms in a classroom-style setting at a cost of $1,600.
The school district could rent those rooms at that rate for 200
days, which includes instructional days plus personal preparatory days
for teachers for $320,000. Even if those rooms were rented every single
day of the year--365 days--at that rate, the district would still spend
only $584,000. Allow another half-million for salaries, supplies,
transportation and so forth, and you still are a far cry from the Taj
Mahal-like prices being charged by taxpayers.
A favored defense of maintaining this labor policy, borne out of
the desperate days of The Great Depression, is that simply requiring
prevailing-wage rates result in safer, higher-quality work. But this
thinking is outmoded and antiquated--just like the Davis-Bacon Act
itself.
According to the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 96
percent of Kentucky's 176 school superintendents answered ``no'' when
asked if the increased costs incurred by prevailing wage resulted in
discernible higher quality.
Besides, how is it that contractors build quality office complexes,
large custom homes, investment properties and corporate facilities
without being coerced by some kind of forced wage policy? These
contractors don't even have to be told the quantity and quality of
people to hire to accomplish a task!
But many contractors don't even participate in public projects.
Prevailing-wage rates are so complicated, vary widely from place to
place, are established according to federal rates in some areas, state
rates in other areas and can be at the whims of even local unions that
it's too daunting for many private contractors.
Kentucky is not only known for Lincoln. It's also known for
Corvettes. All Corvettes are now made at the GM plant in Bowling Green
plant. Across the street from the plant is the National Corvette
Museum, which contains many of the past relics of the great Corvette.
While the museum is a great place--car and history buffs love it--
it's at the plant across the street where the new models are coming
out, which build and improve on past models.
In order to free up badly needed money to build new schools and
repair existing ones, its' time for Davis-Bacon to be relegated to the
history of public policies that have long outlived their usefulness,
either to schools or taxpayers.
Thank you very much.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. McCluskey?
STATEMENT OF NEAL MCCLUSKEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, THE CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. McCluskey. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Neal McCluskey, and I am the
associate director of the CATO Institute's Center for
Educational Freedom.
CATO is a nonprofit research institute that seeks to
broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow
consideration of traditional American principles of limited
government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace. Along
those lines, I will discuss the best federal role in school
facility maintenance and construction and explain why school
choice is the key to building and maintaining high-quality
schools.
I must begin by noting that the Constitution gives
Washington no authority in education outside of prohibiting
discrimination by states and local districts. Nowhere in the
enumerated powers is the word education found. And the 10th
Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the federal
government to the states or people.
I should also add that the general welfare clause does not
change this. It confers no authority on its own, but simply
introduces the specific enumerated powers that follow it. As
James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 41, ``For what purpose
could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these
and all others were meant to be included in the preceding
general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first
use of general phrase and then to explain and qualify it by
recital of particulars.''
Despite this, Washington has been heavily involved in
education for decades. It has never, though, had a major role
in funding most school facilities. Indeed, for compelling
reasons of fairness and effectiveness, it should have no role
at all.
Well, what are the fairness issues? The first is the
unfairness of redistributing funds from taxpayers in districts
that have maintained their schools to districts where
maintenance has been allowed to slide. As U.S. Department of
Education report, ``Condition of America's Schools Facilities
1999'' notes, district officials attributed declining
conditions primary to insufficient funds resulting from
ultimately very costly decisions to defer needed maintenance
and repairs.
Next, whatever increase in federal aid might be proposed
will likely be targeted to high-poverty districts, on the
grounds that those districts are under-funded. But this is not
accurate.
Department of Education data show that per people
expenditures are indeed higher in the districts with the lowest
quintile of poverty, the wealthiest populations, as expected.
But the second highest spending is in the quintile with the
highest concentration of poverty. Meanwhile the three middle
quintiles are well below both. As a result, it is likely that
much of the federal money that would support construction in
high-poverty districts would actually come from taxpayers whose
own districts are well outspent by the recipients.
How about efficiency? The major reason that buildings are
poorly maintained is not insufficient funds. According to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend
more per pupil than almost any other industrialized nation.
Overall, real public school per pupil funding increased from
about $4,000 in 1965 to $11,000 in 2003.
Regarding facilities construction, from 2000 to 2006,
districts completed projects totaling more than $145 billion,
according to School Planning and Management's 2007 construction
report. That is an amount exceeding the 1996 GAO estimate that
$112 billion would be needed to bring all schools to good
overall condition and a 1999 Education Department estimate of
$127 billion. Even accounting for inflation, $145 billion
should have ended the facilities problem with $1 billion or so
left over. But apparently it didn't.
Ultimately, the facilities problem is one of inefficiency.
Many districts are bureaucratically hide-bound, adversely
affecting maintenance and construction. The anecdotal evidence
abounds, but consider just one example. And there are more in
my written testimony.
The Washington, D.C. public schools have rampant
maintenance failures despite per pupil expenditures exceeding
$14,000. This is a problem that Chancellor Rhee has attributed
largely to central office bureaucracy. Pushing more federal
money at schools won't change this. It will only add more
bureaucracy.
In addition to necessary maintenance and construction not
getting done, much of the basis for assessing facilities comes
from districts self-reporting. And it is at least possible that
some districts might overestimate problems. At the very least,
the assessments are subjective and likely inconsistent from
school to school. There is also considerable anecdotal evidence
that when new schools are built it isn't necessarily with cost
control or core academic needs in mind.
There is good reason to be doubtful that any funding
mechanism in our current system will result in effective
construction and maintenance. But there is a solution.
Washington must stay out of school construction. But
members should exhort their states and districts to let
parental control of education funding to enable that by taking
it to any--let the parents take it to any school they wish,
public or private. School choice is the key to good school
buildings.
Consider when a school gets funding regardless of building
dilapidation, the incentives to conduct adequate maintenance
are limited. Certainly, the building might not be a great place
to work, but a paycheck is coming nonetheless, and getting
problems fixed can be very hard. When schools don't compete,
they don't have to care as much about their buildings as
schools that have to attract and earn customers.
Chairman Miller. Mr. McCluskey, I am going to ask you to--
because Mr. McKeon and I have got to try to make a vote here. I
am going to ask you to wrap up----
Mr. McCluskey. I am almost done.
Chairman Miller. Okay.
Mr. McCluskey. The other problem with top-down controls is
that large organizations have big, slow bureaucracies with
autonomy. In contrast, schools can respond quickly to their
needs, not having to fight to get work approval, supplies, and
maintenance personnel.
We have evidence that private schooling better provides
buildings. And it----
Chairman Miller. I am going to ask you to wrap up. I have
no choice. The clock is running.
Mr. McCluskey. Okay. So what should Congress do to ensure
that the nation has the best possible schools? We should be
funding the states and districts and exhort them to enact
school choice.
[The statement of Mr. McCluskey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neal McCluskey, Associate Director, Center for
Educational Freedom, the Cato Institute
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on
investing in school facilities. My name is Neal McCluskey, and I am the
Associate Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational
Freedom. Cato is a non-profit public policy research institute that
seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow
consideration of the traditional American principles of limited
government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Along those
lines, today I would like to discuss the best role that the federal
government can play in school facility maintenance and construction:
That is, no role. I would also like to explain why widespread school
choice is the key to efficiently building and maintaining high-quality
school facilities.
I must begin by stating Constitutional principles: the Constitution
gives the federal government no authority to make policy in education
outside of prohibiting de jure discrimination by states and local
districts. Nowhere in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution
will you find the terms ``school'' or ``education,'' and of course the
Tenth Amendment makes clear that ``the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' In
addition, contrary to the perception of some jurists and legislators,
the ``general welfare'' clause does not change this. It confers no
authority on its own, but simply introduces the specific, enumerated
powers that follow it. As James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 41,
``For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be
inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the
preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first
to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
recital of particulars.''
Of course, constitutional problems notwithstanding, the federal
government has been heavily involved in education since passage of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. Thankfully, though,
while it has had some involvement in school construction and
maintenance--especially through Impact Aid programs for districts
affected by federal installations, which will not be the focus of my
remarks--it has never had a major role in funding school facilities not
eligible for Impact Aid. It would not be advisable for Congress to
expand its current, limited role. Indeed, for compelling reasons of
both fairness and, more importantly, effectiveness, it should have no
role at all.
What are the fairness issues?
The first is the unfairness of redistributing funds from taxpayers
in districts that have dutifully maintained their schools to districts
where maintenance needs have been allowed to slide until small problems
have become big ones. As the U.S. Department of Education report
Condition of America's School Facilities: 1999 noted:
[D]istrict officials attributed declining conditions primarily to
insufficient funds, resulting from decisions to defer maintenance and
repair expenditures from year to year. However, maintenance can only be
deferred for a short period of time before school facilities begin to
deteriorate in noticeable ways. Without regular maintenance, equipment
begins to break down, indoor air problems multiply, and buildings fall
into greater disrepair. * * * The lack of regular maintenance can also
result in a host of health and safety problems, including exposure to
carbon monoxide and risk of physical injuries. Additionally, deferred
maintenance increases the cost of maintaining school facilities; it
speeds up the deterioration of buildings and the need to replace
equipment. * * *
It is important to note that such a redistribution is likely to
occur whether the federal government expands Qualified Zone Academy
Bonds (QZABs)--in which federal taxpayers cover the interest on school
construction bonds--or direct federal construction assistance.
Most likely, whatever increase in federal aid might be proposed
will be targeted, at least at the outset, at districts with high
concentrations of poverty, and justified on the grounds that those
districts are underfunded and hence most in need of aid. This, at least
rhetorically, drives most federal education policy, but is inaccurate,
and any initiative that takes money from presumably better-off
taxpayers and gives it to high-poverty districts on the grounds that it
will equalize education spending rests on a crumbled foundation.
Using data from the 2005 and 2007 editions of the Department of
Education's annual Condition of Education report, we see that, as
expected, per-pupil expenditures are highest in the districts in the
lowest quintile of poverty--meaning, the districts with the wealthiest
population. In the 2003-04 school year (the most recent with available
data), those districts spent on average $10,857 per-student, a figure
which includes capital costs. The surprising statistic is that the
second highest spending is in the quintile with the highest poverty
level, where $10,377 was spent per-pupil. Meanwhile, the three middle
quintiles are well below the districts with the highest poverty, and
this has been the case since at least the 1989-90 school year, the
earliest for which the Condition of Education has data. As a result of
this distribution, it is highly likely that much of the federal tax
money that would support construction and maintenance in high-poverty
districts would come from taxpayers whose own districts get well
outspent by those very districts they are being forced too subsidize.
How about efficiency?
First of all, the major reason that buildings are poorly
maintained, especially in large, urban districts, is not a lack of
funds. In addition to the telling statistics about which districts
actually spend the most money, we know that overall, American education
is not underfunded. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators
2006, we spend more per-pupil in elementary and secondary education
than any member country save Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland.
Overall, according to U.S. Department of Education Statistics, real K-
12 public school per-pupil funding nationwide increased from $4,077 in
1965 to $11,016 in 2003, a 170 percent increase.
And the increases are not just in the aggregate. Using data from
the 2007 Education Department report An Historical Overview of Revenues
and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, by
State: Fiscal Years 1990-2002, we see that real facilities acquisition
and construction expenditures per pupil rose from $481 in 1990 to $903
in 2002, an 88 percent increase. From 2000 to 2006 districts completed
construction projects totaling more than $145 billion according to
School Planning and Management's 2007 Construction Report, an amount
exceeding both a 1996 GAO estimate that $112 billion would be needed to
bring all school facilities to ``good overall condition,'' and a 1999
National Center for Education Statistics estimate of $127 billion. Even
accounting for inflation from the 1999 estimate, $145 billion should
have ended the facilities problem with a billion-or-so left over. Yet,
apparently, it didn't.
Ultimately, the facilities maintenance and construction problem is
largely one of inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement. As researchers
like John Chubb, Terry Moe, and William Ouchi have well established,
many districts--especially large, urban districts--are hopelessly
hidebound by bureaucracy, slow to move and incredibly inefficient when
they do. The negative results have been seen most concretely in
stagnant academic achievement despite massive infusions of money, and
while aggregate, systemic data about construction and maintenance
success is not available, it stand to reason that district dysfunction
affects maintenance and construction much like it affects academics.
The anecdotal evidence abounds in cities all over the country, but
consider just two examples. The Washington, DC, public schools have
rampant maintenance failures and a lengthy job backlog despite per-
pupil expenditures well in excess of $14,000, a problem Chancellor Rhee
has attributed largely to central office bureaucracy. Or witness the
Belmont Learning Complex project in Los Angeles, which from the start
was plagued by community conflicts over its use and design, but really
fell apart after half the school was built and it was discovered to be
on an environmentally unacceptable old oil field. The school was
eventually completed, but not without gigantic cost overruns.
In far too many cases, the money that should be reaching engineers,
electricians and plumbers--just like the money that should be reaching
students--simply doesn't get there.
In addition to the very real problem of necessary maintenance and
construction not getting done, there is a good chance that at least
some of the deficiencies we see reported are overstated, and some of
the construction and spending that is done is unnecessary. Concerning
the former, it is important to note that much of our basis for
assessing national school facility need comes from principal and
district self-reporting. Both Condition of America's Public School
Facilities: 1999 and Public School Principals Report on Their School
Facilities: Fall 2005 use self-reported data on school conditions, and
it is at least possible that some people who run schools and work in
them will overestimate problems. At the very least, the assessments are
subjective and almost certainly inconsistent from one school to
another. There is also considerable anecdotal evidence that when new
schools are built, they aren't necessarily done with cost-control or
core academic needs in mind. Consider the new T.C. Williams High School
in Alexandria, Virginia, of Remember the Titans fame. Opened this year
$25 million over budget, the new T.C. Williams boasts television
studios, a black-box theater, and a planetarium--hardly basic needs.
It is important to note that states are not necessarily good
stewards of construction funds any more than districts are. New Jersey
recently had a major scandal concerning its School Construction
Corporation, which was established to build schools in low-income, so-
called Abbott districts. This entity made such moves as paying local
governments more than $67 million to buy land already owned by the
public; selecting sites on which to build schools containing heavy
environmental contamination; and paying private contractors more than
$217 million above originally contracted amounts.
There is very good reason to be highly skeptical that any funding
mechanism in our current education system will result in efficient and
effective school construction and maintenance. But as much as it may
seem like it, I am not here to simply tell you what's wrong in school
construction and maintenance, exhort you to do nothing about it, and
then go on my merry way. I have a solution. Congress must cease federal
intervention in school construction, refrain from getting more deeply
involved, and individual Members of Congress should exhort their states
and local districts--which have proper authority over education--to let
all parents control education funding for their children by taking it
to any school they wish, public or private. School choice--letting
markets work--is the key to getting good, safe school buildings, just
as it is the key to academic success.
First, consider basic, human motives. When a school gets funding--
and its employees get paid--regardless of whether or not the school
building is in good condition, the incentives to vigilantly conduct
painstaking maintenance are small. Sure, the building might not be a
great place to work, but a paycheck is coming regardless, and getting
tough problems fixed and regular preventative maintenance done can
often be very hard. When schools don't have to compete they don't have
to care nearly as much about their buildings as schools that have to
earn customers, and have to look, sound, and smell as conducive to
effective learning as possible. A visit to Eastern Europe offers
plentiful examples of how poorly construction and maintenance worked
under non-competitive incentive structures.
As touched on earlier, the other problem with top-down control is
that large organizations invariably have big bureaucracies, and big
bureaucracies invariably make action inefficient and slow. In a system
of choice with autonomous schools, in contrast, schools can respond
very quickly to their needs, not having to perpetually fill out
extensive paperwork to get work approvals, supplies, and maintenance
personnel from huge, distant home offices.
The superiority of private provision of education when it comes to
facilities is not just theoretical--it has been established both in the
United States and abroad. Here are just three examples:
In Arizona, the director of Cato's Center for Educational
Freedom, Andrew Coulson, found that when asked the same core questions
as were asked of public school officials in Condition of America's
Public School Facilities: 1999, private school operators reported that
their schools were in much better condition than public schools
nationwide (Arizona public school data was not available). And this was
not a result of having ``better'' students--Arizona's private schools
reported better conditions of such things as foundations, ventilation,
and electrical power which could not be easily affected by such student
behaviors as vandalism. Perhaps most impressively, the private schools
were able to do this despite spending much less per pupil than their
public counterparts (taking into account all sources of revenue, not
simply tuition).
In New Orleans, by early November after Hurricane Katrina
three private schools were back up and running in the city's especially
hard-hit East Bank, and eight of the city's Roman Catholic schools were
operating. None of the city's traditional public or charter schools, in
contrast, had yet reopened. By the Spring of 2006 nearly 20,000
students were enrolled in private schools, well above the number in
public schools.
Extensive research by British professor James Tooley has
documented that private schools found throughout some of the most
impoverished slums in the world provide superior conditions compared to
government-run schools. Tooley has found that private schools in places
like Hyderabad, India, Ga, Ghana, and Lagos, Nigeria, are more likely
to provide such things as drinking water, fans, electricity, toilets,
and libraries than government schools. Similar findings have been
reported for these and other countries by other researchers. Why? The
private schools have to compete for students.
So what should Congress do to ensure that the nation has the best
possible school facilities? Essentially, nothing. The best things that
Congress as a whole can do is leave school facility funding and policy
making to states and local districts, and the best thing that
individual members of Congress can do is take up the bully pulpit and
exhort your states and districts to enact widespread school choice.
Then, all school managers will have the incentives to keep up with
necessary maintenance, and when new buildings truly are needed, they
will be built with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
look forward to your questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you. Because we have a
series of votes which we were not aware of when we scheduled
this hearing or started this hearing, I am not going to hold
you here because I think it is going to be almost an hour
before we return. I want to thank you for your testimony.
I have some questions, but I will send them to you, submit
them to you in writing. And I would appreciate--I have some
questions about leveraging the federal funds in California. I
have some questions about the replication of the School of the
Future and also some questions about leveraging in Iowa.
I want to say to the members you have 14 days to submit
their testimony. And if you have questions, we will compile
them and give them to the witnesses in writing. Thank you very
much. I am sorry for this, but I think your time is more
valuable than waiting around for another hour before we return
from the four votes.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Additional questions to witnesses submitted by Mr. Miller
follow:]
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Judi Caddick,
c/o Memorial Jr. High School, Lansing, IL.
Dear Ms. Caddick: Thank you for testifying at the February 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Yvette Clarke (NY-11), a member of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following question:
1. As you are aware, Congress is in the process of reauthorizing No
Child Left Behind. Accountability, in the form of a school's annual
yearly progress (AYP), is an important component of NCLB. In your
testimony, you mentioned the correlation between newer and better
schools and standardized test scores. My question is two fold: first,
can you discuss, how substandard school facilities could impact a
school's ability to make AYP; and second, do you believe that
integrating a child's immediate environment into their core curriculum
could aid in their achievement?
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[Response from Ms. Caddick follows:]
February 25, 2008.
Chairman George Miller,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at
your committee's February 13, 2008 hearing on ``Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future.'' While I welcome the opportunity
to amplify my comments, I am a classroom teacher, not an expert in
school construction. The responses to the questions below from
Representatives Yvette Clark and Vern Ehlers are based on information
provided by NEA subject matter experts.
Clark: As you are aware, Congress is in the process of
reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. Accountability, in the form of a
school's annual yearly progress (AYP), is an important component of
NCLB. In your testimony, you mentioned the correlation between newer
and better schools and standardized test scores. My question is
twofold: first, can you discuss how substandard school facilities could
impact a school's ability to make AYP * * *
``Adequate yearly progress'' (AYP) is a measure of progress toward
the goal of 100 percent student achievement of state academic standards
in reading/language arts and math, at a minimum. Every student's
performance impacts AYP. In turn, the teaching and learning
environment, including the physical condition of the school building,
impacts student achievement.
Poor indoor air quality (IAQ) is associated with absenteeism among
teachers and students alike--it makes them sick, and sick students and
teachers can't perform as well as healthy ones. Temperature, humidity
and ventilation contribute to IAQ. Data gathered by the U.S. General
Accountability Office, going as far back as 1996, indicates that
schools serving poor and minority students suffer disproportionally
from poor IAQ. The federal government is encouraging further
investigation of the consequences. No Child Left Behind, for example,
calls for more research on the relationship between IAQ and student
achievement.
Lighting and acoustics also affect teaching and learning. Studies
show that appropriate lighting improves test scores and reduces off-
task behavior. Levels of classroom noise and reverberation correlate
with reading and spelling ability, behavior patterns, attention spans,
and overall achievement in children.
On the one hand, the age, quality and aesthetics of school
buildings have all been linked to student behavior problems, including
vandalism, absenteeism, suspensions, tardiness, racial incidents, and
smoking. On the other hand, capital investments in schools have been
linked to higher student achievement, teacher motivation, school
leadership, and the time students spend learning.
A substantial body of research documents how substandard school
facilities adversely affect student performance and teacher
effectiveness, thereby undermining a school's ability to make AYP.
Specifically:
Students who attend schools in better physical condition
outperform students in substandard schools by several percentage
points. Overcrowding makes it harder for students to learn, especially
students from families of low socioeconomic status. (School Facility
Conditions and Student Academic Achievement, 2002. Glen I. Earthman,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Published by
UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access. (Available at
http://repositories.cdlib.org/idea/wws/wws-rr008-1002.)
Space, noise, heat, cold, light, and air quality all bear
on students' and teachers' performance. What is needed--clean air, good
light, a comfortable and safe learning environment--can be achieved
with existing technology if funding is adequate and design competent.
(Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? 2002. Mark Schneider,
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Available at http://
www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf.)
On Virginia's Standards of Learning examinations at the
middle school level, a higher percentage of students attained passing
scores in English, mathematics, and science in standard buildings than
in substandard buildings. (The Relationship between School Building
Conditions and Student Achievement at the Middle School Level in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, 2007. Calvin Bullock, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. Available at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
theses/available/etd-08212007-163313.)
The Ysleta Independent School District, a high-performing,
high-poverty school district in Texas, found that from 1994 to 2001,
the percentage of students who passed the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills varied with the age, condition, and cleanliness of school
buildings. (A Study of the Effect School Facility Conditions Have on
Student Achievement, 2003. Susan Lair, University of Texas. Available
at http://wwwlib.umi.com/dxweb, Report No: 3116105.)
Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning,
published by the National Academies Press in 2007, explores the
relationship between the overall condition of school buildings and
student achievement, and provides an analysis of--and recommendations
for--planning and maintaining green schools. (Available at http://
books.nap.edu/catalog/11756.html.)
Clark: * * * and second, do you believe that integrating a child's
immediate environment into their core curriculum could aid in their
achievement?
Integrating the immediate school environment into the core
curriculum would encourage students to take a greater interest in their
physical surroundings and to become responsible environmental stewards.
This approach, called ``service-learning'' (a form of experiential
education based on a cycle of planning, action and reflection) has
proven effective in community settings. Students acquire knowledge and
skills, apply what they have learned, and experience the consequences--
literally and emotionally. Research confirms that service learning
approach can be an effective strategy for enhancing student
achievement.
Ehlers: To what extent do public schools use public-private
partnerships when funding school construction projects?
The United States has been slow to adopt the Public-Private
Partnership (PPP) model for funding school construction projects.
President Bush's tax cut bill, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, promised towns and cities that forming PPPs
with real-estate developers and investors would enable them to build
schools faster, better and less expensively. Few have done so, for good
reason. The law sets a nationwide ceiling of $3 billion on private
bonds for school construction. Moreover, U.S. Treasury regulations do
not allow investors and developers involved in such projects to claim
depreciation.
The PPP model has been used to finance construction of two high
schools in the Houston Independent School District; charter schools in
Florida and Michigan; and to finance renovation of vacant, privately
owned commercial space for school use in Arizona, Florida, New Jersey,
and North Carolina.
Ehlers: To what extent would it be reasonable to expect schools to
raise a certain amount of funding in order to receive a federal
incentive or matching payment?
In a few cases, school districts have had to raise construction
funds to qualify for matching funds provided by the state--in
California, for example. On the federal level, the Qualified Zone
Academy Bond (QZAB) program, introduced in 1997, most closely
approximates this approach. QZABs allow schools serving low-income
students to reduce interest payments on tax-exempt bonds or loans used
to finance capital improvements, usually about half the cost of
renovating a school. The schools repays the entire amount borrowed; the
lending institution receives a tax credit in lieu of interest payments.
To qualify for the QZAB program, a school must be located in a
federal Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, or at least 35
percent of the students must be eligible for free- or reduced-price
lunches. Participating schools partner with private businesses that
contribute cash, goods or services worth at least 10 percent of the
borrowed amount.
Ehlers: My congressional district may be home to the most
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools
in the nation (four schools as of January 13). To what extent has
recent school construction complied with the U.S. Green Building
Council's standards for LEED certification or other comparable
standards?
The U.S. Green Building Council reports that since April 2007, when
it launched LEED for schools, on average one school per day has
registered for certification. More than 75 schools have been certified
to date and 600 are in the pipeline.
Ehlers: How should the federal government encourage more K-12
schools to invest in sustainable construction activities?
To encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities, Congress should fund the green schools
research authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. No existing federal study focuses on the correlation between the
indoor environmental quality of green schools and students' health and
performance. Funding such a study would fill this research gap and
provide crucial information for local decision-makers.
Ehlers: What is the preferable approach for encouraging more
schools to use energy and environmentally friendly construction
methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-exempt bonds, or
grant funds) or federal mandates?
The federal government should provide grants and other financial
incentives to encourage school districts, especially those in less
affluent areas, to use energy and environmentally friendly construction
methods.
Ehlers: Related to this, I would also appreciate insights on how to
encourage schools to engage in sustainable (``green'' certified)
remodeling projects.
Going ``green'' does not necessitate building a new school or even
major renovations. Schools can go green gradually, starting with
cleaning and purchasing policies, and installing high-performance
lighting. Green performance contracting may be a good approach when
capital and operating budgets are limited. The U.S. Green Building
Council plans to release a guidance document specifically for schools
later this year. In the meantime, schools can consult the Council's
LEED for existing buildings.
In closing, I thank you again for the opportunity to address these
issues critical to the future of our children and our nation as a
whole. I urge Congress to act quickly to authorize school modernization
programs to help ensure that all our children have the safe, modern
learning environments so integral to success.
Sincerely,
Judi Caddick.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Mary Cullinane,
Director, Innovation and Business Development Team, Microsoft
Corporation, New York, NY.
Dear Ms. Cullinane: Thank you for testifying at the February 13,
2008 hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Yvette Clarke (NY-11), a member of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following question:
1. In your testimony you discussed the ``knowledge economy'' and
the importance of preparing students for careers in the 21st Century.
How does project based learning and experiential learning prepare our
students to be competitive in the global market? What is your position
on standardized testing and its ability to prepare our students for
careers that require critical thinking skills, effective communication,
and problem solving?
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Mary Cullinane Responses to Follow-Up Questions
Representative Yvette Clarke (NY-11), a member of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following question:
1. In your testimony you discussed the ``knowledge economy'' and
the importance of preparing students for careers in the 21st Century.
How does project based learning and experiential learning prepare our
students to be competitive in the global market?
Project based learning prepares students for the global marketplace
in several key ways. First, it much more closely mirrors the work they
will do upon graduation in the workplace. Second, it encourages them to
consider their community, their world and question what they see, read,
and hear. Third, it teaches them to work collaboratively and in doing
so highlights the importance of communication, delegation, and even
accountability for their share of projects undertaken.
All these critical elements of the learning process more closely
reflect life and work in a post-industrial, information based,
knowledge intensive economy. At the School of the Future, project-based
learners are asked to do more than master core skills. They are
encouraged to raise generative questions--questions that create more
questions--about project topics and the best ways to learn about them.
In addition, each project is multi-disciplinary and thus more relevant
to the complex way learning happens in the world in which they live. In
this model, educators play a very different role, using an individual
approach with each child to draw learning out of them, while providing
support and guidance when it is needed.
During any given day, learners at the School of the Future will
find out more than just the answer to a multiplication problem or
grammar question. Through project based learning, they'll discover
something about who they are, establishing a frame of reference that
makes each piece of curriculum relevant to their world. Rather than
moving through a day of regimented, discrete classes, each student is
involved for several months in projects that combine different
educational disciplines. For example, a project entitled Money and
Rights lets students discover how money came into existence (history),
helps them understand budgets (mathematics), and gives them a chance to
develop theories on the role of money in their own community (social
studies). Collaboration and presentation are key-parts of every
project, helping learners gain competencies in teamwork, problem
solving, and communication, including writing and public speaking. In
each project, generative questions from students begin the specific
discussion. ``How did that happen?'' leads to research. ``Why didn't
they do it this way?'' generates an experiment. Even ``Why do we need
to learn this?'' helps establish relevance for a topic. And the form of
the project always follows function--instead of marching through a
learning sequence, it evolves organically, with input from students.
What they discover on Monday will influence their tasks on Tuesday and
beyond, and in many cases the scope of the project (and its
findings) can exceed the original expectations of school educators.
As the projects evolve, educators are continually observing and
assessing project teams to ensure that required content is being
covered, and learners are acquiring and developing fundamental skills.
If there is a need for reinforcement of certain material, or students
need extra help with skills, educators can approach them on an
individual level to give them the help and resources they need. Because
a School of the Future learner's day is not as structured as a typical
student's, this often can be accomplished through supplementary
instruction or practice, without significantly interrupting the flow of
the project.
Project-based learning helps students understand topics, rather
than just memorizing facts. These children can extend their learning to
new subjects in school, and eventually to their futures outside the
classroom. That is why the majority of students' projects involve real-
world connections outside the school property, both physical and
virtual. Students may visit the adjacent Philadelphia Zoo, to make a
real connection to the biology they study; or go to a museum, to see
what was left behind by the cultures they're exploring; or meet with
local leaders and community members to gain perspective on the
environment in which they live; or use the advanced technology at the
School to conduct research. Each new project involves a reorganization
of students, and results in groups of children from different
communities, middle schools, and backgrounds. Additionally, students
are not ``sorted'' by proficiency, as in many high schools; rather they
are challenged to work with new faces and personalities in order to
succeed in teams and as individual learners.
What is your position on standardized testing and its ability to
prepare our students for careers that require critical thinking skills,
effective communication, and problem solving?
Although Microsoft has never taken a position on specific
standardized tests or their implementation, we believe they are one
component that can be utilized to gauge student achievement.
Fundamentally, ``testing''--meaning a substantive assessment of
educational progress--is more important than ever if we are to ensure
that students graduate with ``21st Century skills'' in such critical
areas as communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Without
effective measurement, no educational endeavor is likely to be as
effective as it might be since this is a critical element in
identifying ways in which to drive improvement and enhance achievement.
We are in a state of nearly constant evaluation at the school and we
believe this should serve as a model for policymakers to consider. Our
experience also indicates that funding for new data systems and support
for initiatives such as the Data Quality Campaign and the State
Education Data Center are important.
The assessment system at the School of the Future ensures its
students meet the same state educational standards (the annual
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)) as their peers in
Philadelphia. But helping students to succeed in a traditional, content
based assessment does not have to mean approaching it in a traditional
way. Each curriculum plan for the School of the Future begins with a
state standard, which are matched with student competencies, as
determined by school leadership. In turn, these competencies map to
``lenses''--the foundation of the project-based model at the school--
which go beyond subject matter to look at ways of thinking about
learning. At the student level, the curriculum focus is on
understanding: the level of understanding which children begin; the
milestones of understanding they reach during learning; and the
culmination of their understanding at project end. Assessment of
student competency and understanding does not take the shape of A's,
B's or C's. Rather, at the close of each project, each student receives
a 17-page assessment portfolio, which documents and measures their work
and competencies against a rubric. It is the responsibility of each
student to deliver this portfolio to their parents for acknowledgement
and signature. Student responsibility takes other forms as well. In
addition to having to take and pass the 11th grade PSSA, every student
at the School of the Future must apply to a university or college to
qualify for graduation.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
There is tremendous opportunity for schools to leverage the power
of public-private partnerships and much more needs to be done to ensure
this occurs. Our experience indicates that there is a richness that can
result from the right fit, the right kind of partnership--and one not
based strictly on financial support but that utilizes the breadth of
competencies particularly private entities can bring to bear. We
brought a deep knowledge of the power of software to create a rich
learning environment as well as management and other competencies to
the process. A combination of entities may offer unique partnering
opportunities and resources.
Although many schools may well be in a position to raise a certain
amount of funding, so many more simply will not--a fact that could in
some instances exacerbate difficulties already seen in the system. We
would urge that you consider how to develop a policy framework that
provides greater incentives for deeper, more sustained private sector
involvement--beyond monetary--and providing schools and LEA's with
guidance as to how to engage more effectively with the private sector.
This could take the form of different kinds of management and
leadership training for school and district leaders; exchange program
incentives, and other types of engagement model support.
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green
Building Council's standards for LEED certification or other
comparable standards? How should the federal government encourage more
K-12 schools to invest in sustainable construction activities? What is
the preferable approach for encouraging more schools to use energy and
environmentally friendly construction methods--federal incentives
(e.g., matching funds, tax-exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal
mandates? Related to this, I would also appreciate insights on how to
encourage schools to engage in sustainable (``green'' certified)
remodeling projects.
The issue of federal encouragement for sustainable construction
requires significant and swift investigation as evidence regarding the
impact of sustainable building practices on academic achievement
emerges. In our view, a key lesson learned was the critical role
architectural, aesthetics, and environmental issues played in the
development of School of the Future's critical success factors.
The average School of the Future classroom is 800 square feet and
features controlled daylight, consisting of sufficient natural light
from windows and supplemental artificial lighting to reduce computer
glare. Windows at the School of the Future are equipped with screens
that can be easily raised and lowered to prevent sun glare and diffuse
the controlled daylight. These investments in optimal lighting are well
spent. Research indicates that student performance on math and language
tests can increase more than 25% simply through the implementation of
natural lighting (see The New York Times, Beyond the Bulbs: In Praise
of Natural Light).
In existing facilities, modular furniture can transform traditional
classrooms into flexible environments capable of responding to changing
needs. Wireless technologies are often simple to add as ``last mile''
solutions on top of existing hardwire infrastructure. For example, the
School District of Philadelphia, concurrent with developing the School
of the Future, is completing over 50 renovations of individual
classrooms throughout the district using wireless technologies. Even
lighting, perhaps the hardest design feature to retrofit into an
existing footprint, can be optimized through updated LED fixtures and
window screens that gently diffuse daylight and reduce glare. The
``Green Roof'' over the Performing Arts Center; the gathering system
for rain water for internal use; and the photovoltaic window panels
that gather sunlight and convert it into electricity usage for the
school, are the kinds of innovations that when integrated into the
planning process, can help LEA's meet both budget requirements and
sustainability objectives.
Regardless of the specific policies Congress chooses to enact, we
would urge you to strongly consider the impact of environmental factors
on student achievement and develop a policy framework that provides
greater incentives for significant private sector involvement in the
architecture of 21st century learning environments. Buildings, like
curricula, must reflect the needs of 21st century learning environments
of which sustainability is a critical element.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Mr. Neal McCluskey,
Associate Director of the Center for Educational Freedom, CATO
Institute, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McCluskey: Thank you for testifying at the February 13,
2008 hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Kathleen J. Moore, Director,
School Facilities Planning Division, California Department of
Education, Sacramento, CA.
Dear Ms. Moore: Thank you for testifying at the February 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Yvette Clarke (NY-11), a member of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. In your testimony you discuss how extremely poor environments
have a negative effect on students and teachers. Has your department
done studies on the effects of green building and its impact on student
performance? And if so, what were the results?
2. As you are aware, Congress is in the process of reauthorizing No
Child Left Behind. Accountability, in the form of a school's annual
yearly progress (AYP), is an important component of NCLB. In your
testimony, you mentioned the correlation between newer and better
schools and standardized test scores. My question is two fold: first,
can you discuss, how substandard school facilities could impact a
school's ability to make AYP; and second, do you believe that
integrating a child's immediate environment into their core curriculum
could aid in their achievement?
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Mr. Paul Vallas, Superintendent,
Recovery School District, New Orleans, LA.
Dear Mr. Vallas: Thank you for testifying at the February 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Dr. Paula Vincent,
Clear Creek Amana School District, Oxford, IA.
Dear Dr. Vincent: Thank you for testifying at the February 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION],
February 15, 2008.
Mr. Jim Waters, Director of Policy and Communications,
Bluegrass Institute, Bowling Green, KY.
Dear Mr. Waters: Thank you for testifying at the February 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future''.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI-03), a member of the Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee and the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
1. To what extent do public schools use public-private partnerships
when funding school construction projects? To what extent would it be
reasonable to expect schools to raise a certain amount of funding in
order to receive a federal incentive or matching payment?
2. My congressional district may be home to the most Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified schools in the nation
(four schools as of January 13). To what extent has recent school
construction complied with the U.S. Green Building Council's standards
for LEED certification or other comparable standards? How should the
federal government encourage more K-12 schools to invest in sustainable
construction activities? What is the preferable approach for
encouraging more schools to use energy and environmentally friendly
construction methods--federal incentives (e.g., matching funds, tax-
exempt bonds, or grant funds) or federal mandates? Related to this, I
would also appreciate insights on how to encourage schools to engage in
sustainable (``green'' certified) remodeling projects.
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business Monday, February
25, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman Miller, for holding this hearing on public
school construction needs. I also want to thank my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle that will testify today. I appreciate your time and
your insights on this important topic.
Modernizing our nation's schools is a critical component of
improving the education system in this country. A 2005 survey found
that 52 percent of schools had no science laboratories, 30 percent had
no art rooms, 19 percent had no music rooms, and 17 percent had no
gymnasium. Even more troubling, anecdotal evidence suggests that many
schools have basic infrastructure needs that have not been addressed
leading to environments that are not conducive to learning and, at
times, unhealthy. As one might expect, schools with disproportionately
high percentages of low-income students face the greatest
infrastructure challenges.
Due to our public schools' construction needs, I have cosponsored
the America's Better Classroom Act of 2007 (HR 2470). This legislation
will provide $22 billion in interest free bonds for public schools to
rehabilitate and modernize their facilities. I know that several other
members, who we will hear from today, have introduced additional
legislation that will help address the construction needs of our public
schools. I look forward to hearing from these members and to working
with them on this issue.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
______
[The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Connecticut
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, I want to thank you very
much for convening this very important hearing today. I look forward to
hearing from my colleagues and the rest of the distinguished panel.
As I travel around the district visiting elementary, middle and
high schools, I hear first-hand the problems faced by administrators
dealing with aging infrastructure and high energy costs. In order to
raise awareness and promote the benefits of green school construction,
I have joined the newly established Green Schools Caucus. Aging schools
have a detrimental effect on the lives of students, teachers,
administrators and support staff.
In June 2006, the Institute for Sustainable Energy (ISE) at Eastern
Connecticut State University prepared an Energy Efficiency Study of
Connecticut Schools. One of the most striking findings was that total
energy costs for Connecticut schools for the 2005-2006 year rose to
over $160 million, a 35 percent increase over the previous year.
Unfortunately, as these costs escalate, school districts must look at
ways to reduce spending in education, extracurricular activities,
maintenance and hiring.
Over 90 percent of Connecticut's 1026 public schools were built
before 1978 and 68 percent of them were built between 1950 and 1978.
These schools were built in an era of rapid growth and low energy
prices and with building codes that gave little or know thought to
smart, healthy, energy-efficient design. Therefore, most of Connecticut
schools are energy inefficient although many have participated in
programs to upgrade their lighting systems.
The Department of Energy has found that schools built before 1978
are designed and constructed in such a way to make them inherently
energy inefficient and wasteful. Insulation levels are minimal; single
level buildings often do not contain vapor barriers, thus leading to
mold; and something as simple as making optimal use of outdoor lighting
was rarely incorporated.
Conversely, many of the schools built before 1950 seem to be
performing better than their later-built counterparts. Often, these
structures were multi-story and constructed of heavier mass that allow
them to distribute heat better and weather extreme winter conditions.
In addition, some of these older buildings have actually been renovated
in the last 10 years, taking advantage of energy efficient heating and
lighting structures.
The ISE found that if Connecticut brought all of its schools up to
the national average--50 on the Energy Star scale, energy use could be
reduced by nearly 30 percent and annual savings in 2005 dollars would
approach $34 million.
The problem facing school districts in eastern Connecticut is the
cost associated with these upgrades. While there are some incentives
for new construction, there are few incentives for retrofitting and
other upgrades to existing structures.
The federal government must do more to assist local school
districts in this country if we are serious about reducing our fossil
fuel consumption and improving the education of students today and in
the future.
I am a cosponsor of the America's Better Classroom Act (H.R. 2470)
which amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit for
investment in qualified public school modernization bonds for the
construction, rehabilitation or repair of a public school facility.
I am also cosponsoring the School Building Enhancement Act (H.R.
3197) that will help bring resources to those school districts that
want to either embark on new construction or retrofit existing
buildings.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today.
______
[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
No child should have to go to a school that is falling down around
him or her. No child should have to wear a winter coat in the classroom
while trying to learn because the heat isn't working. Schools shouldn't
have to close on a hot day because there is no working air
conditioning. Our children deserve the best opportunities in life and
that starts with a quality education in a building where they can focus
on learning, not their healthy or safety. To provide a positive
learning environment, students must have great teachers and sound
facilities. This Committee is finding ways to work with states and
school districts to ensure that schools are renovated or built in a way
that promotes learning for our students.
Several of the witnesses discussed green building and how this is
becoming the wave of the future. Well, the future is already here in my
district. Not only are our schools being planned and constructed to be
more environmentally friendly, they are saving money on energy costs.
As more and more states face budget shortfalls and school districts try
to deal with budget cuts, green energy and green building will make a
difference for school districts. By doing the right thing, we are
actually benefiting our children, schools, and districts.
As the Chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I
would like to address some of the witnesses' criticisms of the Davis-
Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon is as relevant today as it was when it was
passed 75 years ago. The payment of prevailing wages---as required
under the Act---ensures stabilized wages that are not artificially
depressed by competition for federal construction contracts. When
prevailing wages are in place, all contractors are forced to compete on
an equal basis and cannot undercut other bids that are based on finding
the cheapest workforce, a workforce that is easily exploited, and not a
workforce that can do the best job. These prevailing wages benefits the
community and the families and students that come from that community.
In addition, studies have proven a direct correlation between wage
levels and productivity, and projects with high skilled labor often
mean that they cost less and not more. If construction is shoddy,
costly repairs and delays run up the costs of a project---so the
premise that Davis-Bacon costs the Federal Government more is faulty.
Add to that safety, community development and other economic forces,
and Davis-Bacon is actually a cost-saver and not a cost spender.
Besides which, not paying prevailing wages will result in the decline
of apprenticeship training programs. My own belief is that we need more
skilled workers in this country, not less.
I also need to emphasize that prevailing wages are not union wages.
They are based on the usual wages and benefits paid for construction
work in the local community. Twelve (12) states have repealed their own
prevailing wage laws assuming that this would have benefits to
taxpayers. Instead, these repeals have led to dismal consequences. For
example, a study in Iowa found that contractors, by paying less than
prevailing wages, did not pass savings onto the taxpayers, but enriched
themselves instead.
Our children deserve the best possible school buildings and we
shouldn't undercut wages or construction costs at the risk of a
building that isn't the safest and best learning environment for our
children.
______
[Additional submissions from Ms. Hooley follow:]
[``Daylighting in Schools,'' may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-Daylighting.pdf
______
[``Greening America's Schools Costs and Benefits,'' by
Gregory Kats, may be accessed at the following Internet address
by searching for the title:]
http://www.buildgreenschools.org
______
[``Green Building Smart Market Report,'' McGraw-Hill, 2007,
may be purchased at the following Internet address:]
http://greensource.construction.com/resources/smartMarket.asp
______
[Letter submitted by Mr. Kildee follows:]
National Parent Teacher Association,
Council of The Great City Schools,
National Education Association,
American Federation of Teachers,
American Association of School Administrators,
National School Boards Association,
National Association of Elementary School Principals,
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
NAACP,
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools,
American Institute of Architects,
Organizations Concerned About Rural Education,
National Rural Education Association,
Californians for School Facilities,
February 11, 2008.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: Rebuild America's Schools appreciates the
Education and Labor Committee hearing on Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future. Rebuild America's Schools believes
there is an imperative need for Congress and the federal government to
support the efforts of state and local communities to provide the
modern schools our nation's students need to achieve and succeed in the
21st century.
Well-documented estimates such as the Government Accounting Office
1995 Report and the National Education Association 2000 Report place
the need for building new schools to educate record student enrollments
and renovating and repairing existing school buildings as high as $300
billion. While some of these construction needs have been met, local
school districts in every state are delaying priority school
construction projects as they struggle to secure local and state
financing. Federal support with the financing of local school facility
projects is effective. Both the highly successful Emergency School
Repair program and the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program demonstrate
that Congress can provide financial support to local school districts
without interfering with the state and local decision making processes.
New, modernized and technologically equipped schools provide the
learning environments students and teachers need to be more effective.
Simply put, better school facilities advance student achievement and
increase the likelihood of students succeeding academically and in
life.
School Facility Legislation Pending in the House of Representatives
Rebuild America's Schools supports a number of bills before the
House: Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel's bipartisan America's
Better Classrooms Act, HR 2470 with the support of Congressmen Ramstad,
Etheridge, Kildee, yourself and over two hundred of your other
colleagues provides federal support through federal tax credits for $25
billion in state and local school construction bonds. The bonds provide
a federal tax credit in lieu of interest, saving local school districts
almost 50% of the total cost of the bonds.
The America's Better Classrooms Act (HR 2470/S 912) will help
underwrite over $25 billion in school construction bonds at a cost to
the U.S. Treasury of $1.67 billion over five years; $6.7 billion over
ten years for the entire $25 billion program. Components of the ABC
bill would cost even less. Currently 217 members in the House support
and cosponsor this legislation.
Congressman Loebsack and Senator Tom Harkin's legislation, HR 3902/
S. 1942, the Public School Repair and Renovation Act provides $1.6
billion in grants to communities that continue to struggle to fund
needed school facility repairs. This legislation builds on the
Emergency School Repair Program which was funded at $1.2 billion when
Congress first authorized it in 2000. Under the Emergency School Repair
Program, states and school districts successfully used $1.2 billion to
repair and renovate public schools in 2001 and 2002.
Congressman Ben Chandler's bill H.R. 3021, the 21st Century High-
Performing Public School Facilities Act, authorizes $32 billion in
grants and loans over a 5-year period for school repair and
modernization. Additionally, the bill authorizes $1 billion for school
technology infrastructure.
These bills provide three approaches to federal support for the
efforts state and local communities are undertaking to provide the
educational settings students need to learn and to compete successfully
in this century's global economies. A federal commitment to support
school facilities recognizes the national imperative that the academic
success of our students represents the economic and political future of
our country.
When local communities build, renovate and repair schools to
provide safer, more modern school facilities they are also responding
to the call from Congress and the Administration to raise student
achievement. An added dimension of federal support for school
facilities is that the federal financial assistance contributes to
local economies and generates local jobs. Congressional authorization
of programs for school facilities will generate economic activity in
every state. School construction projects will generate thousands of
jobs in the construction industry, and among the many suppliers,
ranging from architects and engineers to roofing contractors and other
workers, who design and build our nation's schools.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Education and Labor
Committee for considering school facility needs as a critical
investment in America's educational, political and economic future.
Better schools improve the opportunity for students to succeed and will
advance student achievement in urban, rural and suburban communities in
every state in our nation.
We respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the
hearing record.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Canavan,
Chair.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned]