INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University M icrofilm s International
A Bell & Howell Inform ation C om pany
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

O rder N u m b e r 9 4 3 1 2 0 9

A stu d y o f p u b lic, K - 1 2 d istr ic ts’ b u ild in gs in th e sta te o f
M ich igan

Atkins, C. Dean, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1993

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A STUDY OF PUBLIC, K-12 DISTRICT'S BUILDINGS
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
By
C. Dean Atkins

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration
1993

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF PUBLIC K-12 DISTRICTS'S BUILDINGS
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
By
C. Dean Atkins
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ages,
condition and deferred needs of public school buildings in
the State

of Michigan.

There

is

not a state policy to

assist local school districts in financing the construction
or re n o v a t i o n of school buildings.

The analysis of data

will give the state legislature information on the needs of
public school buildings in the State.

The analysis of data

will provide support to local school districts in budgeting
for maintenance or renovation.
The universe studied consists of five hundred twentyfour public K-12 school districts.
were

iden tif ie d using the

gr aphical
pupil,

area,

number

following criteria:

dispa ri ty

of p u p i l s

Fifty-seven districts

of State

E qualized Value

p er district,

location to represent rural,

resort,

wide g e o ­

city,

per

and g e o g r a p h i c a l
suburban and one

urban district.
A questionnaire was developed to collect data from each
district and building.

The district survey was a general

survey of current data on State Equalized Value,
deferred maintenance,

budgets,

debt retirement and use of buildings.

The building level survey requested information on the age,
original

cost,

accessibility

cost
for

of

the

re novations,

handicapped,

replacement
deferred

value,

ma intenance

p r ojects and a general assessment of the build ing by the
respondents•
The major findings of the study were that:
1.

There were no statistically significant relation­

ships between 3EV per pupil and the factors of age of build­
ings, maintenance and operation budgets per pupil and dis­
trict deferred maintenance costs per pu p i l .
2.

There were no statistically significant relation­

ships betw ee n the amount of deferred m ai nt ena nce and the
variables of respondents assessment of the condition of the
buildings, age of buildings and the replacement cost index.
3.

The s t u d y r e v e a l e d t h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t

of the

districts used general operation funds to make major renova­
tions of buildings.
4.

S e v e nt y-f our percent of the districts

are using

portable classrooms in their daily operations.
5.

Forty-two percent of the buildings are not accessi­

ble to the physically handicapped.
6.
buildings
building.

The average de fer re d m a in ten an ce needs of those
reporting deferred maintenance was

$562,919 per

DEDICATION
To my wife, Kathie, c h i l d r e n K r i s t a and G r e g w h o s e
support, encouragement, and w i lli ng nes s to s acrifice the
g i vin g of my time and attention have made this possible,
this volume is dedicated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study wo uld not have been pos sib le with ou t the
guidance and counsel I have received during the period of my
graduate study.
I am indebted to Dr. Michael A. Boulus, chairman of the
g u i d a n c e comm itt ee for his encouragement and advice.
I
express my gratitude to Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Dr. Daniel
H. Kruger and Dr. Louis G. Romamo who served as members of
my committee.
Finally, speci al t h a n k s to all the P r o f e s s o r s and
fellow students who lead, challenged and encouraged me in
the pursuit of this degree.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Purpose of the Study
Definition of Terms
Need for the Study
Procedures and Methology
Organization of the Study
Limitations of the Study

PAGE
1 - 10
4
3
6
4
8
6
9
8
10
9
10

II

11

III

IV

V

-

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Financing of Buildings
and Capital Outlay Projects
Instructional Concerns and
School Facilities

28 — 30
42
31
31 - 33
36
34
37
36
37 - 38
38 — 42
—

-

-

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Findings Related to Null
Hypothesis Tested
Findings Related to
Summerized Data
Findings Related to Deferred
Maintenance Needs

43

-

57 — 59
60
73
75
76

—
-

75
75
76
79

80
79
80 - 83
83 - 84
84 — 85
-

76
77
78 - 79
80
81
95

96 - 101
iv

59

53 - 57

Michigan Cunnties Surveyed
Enrollment and SEV Per Pupil
Questionnaire
Letter to Respondents
District Data

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—

43 - 53

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Data
Methology
Principal Findings
Findings of the Study
Utilizing Summarized Data
Conclusions
Recommendations for Further Study
Closing Observations
A
B
C
D
E

42

11 - 28

METHODOLOGY
Population and Sample
Data Collection Instrument
Procedure for Data Collection
Treatment of Data
Methods of Analysis

APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX

—

-

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Descriptive Profile of Michigan School
Districts in the Sample

35

Descriptive Profile of 173
School Buildings

36

Statistical Correlation
of Null Hypothesis 1

45

Statistical Correlation
of Null Hypothesis 2

48

Statistical Correlation
of Null Hypothesis 3

50

Summary of Deferred
Maintenance by Building

51

Statistical Correlation
of Null Hypothesis 4

53

Summary of Building Debt
by District

55

Findings Related to
Deferred Maintenance

59

v

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Winston Churchill once said,
Thereafter,

they shape us."

"We shape our buildings:

As the t w e n ty- fi rst century

dawns our needs to replace and m ai n t a i n school buildings
th r o ug hou t
local

the

s ch ool

n ati on

accelerates.

district

funds

to

The me thod

construct,

of

using

renovate

and

m a i n t a i n school buildi ng s may not be pr ac ti c a b l e to meet
future needs

in an adequate

and

equitable manner.

Hard

economic times in terms of operating revenue for districts
pales when compared with capital funding for new buildings.
No school district,
adva ntages

over

another

regardless of wealth,
in current

should enjoy

operating

funds,

nor

should any district enjoy resource advantages over another
in the p r o v i d i n g of adequate,
facilities

(Burrup,

1977).

safe and accessible school
The methods

used

to

finance

school facilities are antiquated in comparison to the prac­
tices used to finance current educational expenditures.

The

gap between financing building projects and daily operation
is growing as states pass legislation to finance the opera­
tion of schools more e q u i ta bil ity .

The problem of how to

provide school facilities adequately and equability is one
of growing significance across the United States.
Only in the recent past have state governments contrib­
uted to the capital outlay and debt service of local dis­
tricts.
address

A n u mb er of states have
the

issue

of

Fifteen states, however,

capital

shown

funding

a willin gn ess
for

to

facilities.

fail to provide any formal mecha-

1

nism

for

s tat e

assistance

Honeyman and Stewart,

1988)

debt service for school
s p o nsi bi lit y
Kansas,
Ohio,

in

O klahoma,

(Honeyman,

capi tal

states:

Michigan,

Oregon,

(Thompson,

is totally a local re ­
Colorado,

Missouri,

South

Thompson & Wcod,

outlay

Funding for capital outlay and

facilities

fifteen

Louisiana,

to

Montana,

Dakota,

1989).

Idaho,

Te x a s

Iowa,

Nebraska,
and N e v a d a

The thirty-five states

that pr ov ide some plan for capital outlay assistance are
often p r o vi din g

a minimal

amount

in re la tionship

to

the

local effort needed to finance a project.
The

inadequacy

of

state

plan s

for

f u n di ng

ca pit al

outlay and debt service has resulted in a backlog of facili­
ty needs among school districts of all sizes
a l .,

1988).

Modernization

and

replacement

concerns, while federal and state mandates,
class

size,

abatement,

h and ic a p p e d
fire

alarm

accessibile,

system

are

et

growing

such as reduced

Title

retrofit,

(Thompson,

IX,

required

asbestos
special

education programs and expanding curricular needs are cut­
ting

into

already

low b u d g e t

dollars

(Thompson

& Camp,

1988).
A major factor in capital needs of school districts is
the issue of deferred maintenance needs.
nance refers to the cost of renovating,

Deferred m ainte­
constructing,

main­

tai nin g and bringing school buildings up to adequate and
safe standards.
c h oosing
needs.

betwe en
It

Deferring maintenance needs is a process of
daily

instructional

is a bu dget procedure

2

that

needs

and

building

requires

a school

district to choose between targeting limited resources on
instructional
In

19 8 7

programs or on facility needs
a report

by

the

Council

(Green,
of

1987).

Great

Schools, a national association of urban schools,

City

estimated

that the cumulative costs of deferred building maintenance
nationwide to be $25 billion.

A 1991 report by the American

A s s o c i a t i o n of School A d mi ni str at ors

showed the deferred

m a i n t e n a n c e needs to be $100 billion.
(1988)
to

estimated that a total of 5.4 billion will be needed

fund

alone.

Hass and Sparkman

facility pr oje cts

by

1996

in the

state

of Texas

These figures are alarming when taken in isolation.

There are other public needs

such as hospitals,

municipal

and state buildings, roads,

railroads and air infrastructure

that will also have needs

for renovation or new building.

The band-aid approaches indicate the inattention of states
to mechanisms for providing facilities in recent decades and
this has resulted in an accumulation of large needs which
have been inadequately addressed

(Thompson, et al. 1988).

Purpose of the Study
The pu rpo se of this study is to d etermine the ages,
condition and deferred needs of public school buildings in
the State

of Michigan.

Based upon the

findings

of this

study recommendations will be made for possible legislative
action needed to insure safe access

for all students and

prudent financial plans for local and state education agen­
cies.

The assessment of building needs may provide data for

the State to develop policy that will address the needs for

3

a safe and healthy learning environment.
At the p r e s e n t t i m e th er e

is no st ate p o l i c y nor a

mechanism to help local districts finance the construction
or ren ovation of school buildings.

The data g at hered in

this study may assist the legislature and educational lead­
ers to d e v e l o p

a policy

and p r o v i d e

needed

state

level

funding to assist in providing safe, adequate and accessible
buildings to all school populations.

Nationally the litera­

ture suggests school buildings are in a condition of disre­
pair and deterioration.
some

form

of

financial

Two-thirds of the states provide
support

renovation of school buildings.
are

s i m i l a r to th o s e

for the

construction

and

If the needs of Michigan

reported

in the

literature

on the

nations schools, then this paper may suggest a reexamination
of Michigan's lack of policy and lack of a funding mechanism
to assist in the financing of buildings and renovations.
An analysis of the data will give additional support to
local districts in budgeting for maintenance,

capital out­

lay, and replacement or renovation of buildings.
A review of the
avail abl e

literature

to d etermine

the

age,

reveals

limited research

c ondition

and

needs

for

replacement of public school buildings in Michigan.

Definition of Terms
Accessibility
re f e r s

of

to w h e t h e r the

S chool

Buildings:

building meets

state

guidelines for use by all special populations.

4

Accessibility
and

federal

Adequacy of School Buildings:

Adequacy refers to the

capacity of a building to house the current and projected
student population in a safe and comfortable manner.
Assessed Valuation:

A valuation set upon real estate

or other p ro p e r t y by a go ve rnment as a basis

for levying

taxes.
Bonded Debt:

That portion of the in de btedness

of a

school system represented by outstanding b o n d s .
Budget:

A plan of financial

operat ion embody ing an

estimate of proposed expenditures for a given period and the
proposed means of financing them.

Used without any modifi­

er, the term usually indicates a financial plan for a single
fiscal year.
Capital

Outlay:

Expenditures

for the acquisition of

fixed assets or additions to fixed assets.
itures

for

grounds,

land

or e x i s t i n g

buil din gs ,

construction of buildings,

remodeling

of b u i l di ng s,

initial

They are expend­
improvements

of

additions to buildings,
equ ipment,

additional

equipment, and replacement of equipment.
Debt:

An obligation resulting from borrowing of money

or from the purchase of goods or services.

Debts of school

systems include bonds, time warrants, tax anticipation notes
payable, vouchers payable and salaries payable.
Debt Service Fund:

A fund established to finance and

account for the accumulation of financial resources over a
long period of time which are to be used for the payment of
interest

and p r i n c i p a l

serial and term,

on

all

general

obligation

other than that payable exclusively

5

debt,
from

revenue debt issued for and serviced by school systems.
Deferred

Maintenance:

Refers

to

a c a p ita l

o ut la y

project that has been suspended that may include renovation,
construction,

and maintenance of fixed equipment to bring

the physical plant up to safe and adequate standards.
Fixed Assets:
intended

Assets of a long-term character that are

to c o n t i n u e

buildings, machinery,
Long-term Debt:

to be h el d

or used,

such

as

land,

furniture and equipment.
Debt with a maturity of more than one

year after the date of issuance.
Maintenance Expenditure:

Repairs to fixed assets that

do not clearly increase the value and/or useful life of the
asset.
Mill:

One-tenth of one cent or one dollar per thousand

dollars on valuation of property or fixed assets.
Safety

of

S ch ool

Buildings:

Safety

refers

to

the

physical conditions present in the building according to the
Occupational

Health

and

Safety

Administration's

(OSHA)

guidelines.
School

Facilities:

School

Facilities

refers to the

buildings currently in use for instructional programs.
State Equalized Value:

The value of property or fixed

assets that is one-half the assessed value in the State of
Michigan.
Taxes:

C o m p ul sor y charges

levied by a governmental

unit for the purpose of financing services performed for the
common benefit.

6

Need for the Study
The assured safety of students is a primary need within
society.

The condition of the school

facility is a major

factor in assessing the safety of students or conversely of
placing students well-being in jeopardy.
in reliance on local property taxes

With the increase

for general

operating

revenues many districts are reluctant to request funds for
renovation or replacement of school buildings,
crea si ng public p re ssure

to

lower taxes.

due to in­

Property

tax

concerns and a growing unwillingness among patrons to sup­
po r t

tax

increases

constitutes

an

increasingly

s erious

threat to the integrity of educational systems in America.
(Thompson & Others,

1988)

A 1988 survey by the National Association of Directors
of State Education Plant Services showed that approximately
twenty percent of the building now in use were built prior
to 1940.
194 0s.

Only eight percent were constru ct ed during the
A large number of buildings were constructed in the

1930s with public w or k projects of the d epr ession years.
T w e n t y - s i x percent were

build

in the

1950s,

twenty-five percent were added in the 1960s.
Property tax revolts

and

co ur t

cases

and

another

(Philo,

related

to

1990)
school

finance contr ib ute d to the attitude of "let someone else
pay." The state educational reform movement of the 1980s of
mandated smaller classes and increased academic requirements
including

computer

labs

and

increased

special

services contributed to a need for more space

7

education

in spite of

declining enrollments of the 1980sof asbestos,
radon

h av e

Environmental concerns

u n d e r gr oun d storage tanks and more recently
contributed

b u il d i n g

ma in ten an ce

mandates

hav e b ee n the

maintenance

to

increases

budgets.

these

of d e f e r r i n g

other

needed

Association of School Administrators report

"Schoolhouse in

m i l l i o n in 1983,
1991.

March

regulatory

The A m e r i c a n

shows

(PDK,

part,

of

1990).

the Red"

repairs.

ca us e

In

in e x p e n d i t u r e s

deferred maintenance

to total

$25

$41 mil lio n in 1986 and $100 m illion in

(AASA Schoolhouse in the Red)

Honeyman reports in a

study e x c l u s ive ly of small districts
dents)

costs

(less than 800 stu ­

throughout the U. S. there is an overwhelming inabil­

ity of

local

districts

to

fund

capital

needed to keep buildings adequate,
s p e c ia l

populations

of

students.

outlay

at

levels

safe and accessible to
The

average

deferred

maintenance reported in this study approached $3 00,000 per
building and over one-half of the districts that responded
reported that buildings were inferior.
1987)

(Honeyman & Others,

Michigan School Business Officials in a December 1985

report found an anticipated shortfall for capital expendi­
tures projects of over $1.4 million in 416 of the 524 Michi­
gan School Districts.

The anticipated capital expenditure

shortfall

in the above study did not include

as reported

deferred maintenance projects.

Procedure and Methodology
Questions for Research

The study will address the following questions:

1.

What is the age and condition of school building in

the State of Michigan?
2.

Have maintenance/renovation projects been delayed

due to lack of adequate funds?
3.

What is the level of funding needed for renovation

and maintenance projects?
4.

What is level of funding needed for replacement of

buildings with new structures?
5.

Is the ratio of total m ai nte na nce

and operation

expenditures to per pupil state equalized value significant­
ly different for districts with building needs as compared
to those without building needs?
6.

Are buil din gs with needs de ferred

significantly

different that those without needs deferred in the respond­
ents estimation of condition of the buildings?
7.

Will

the

date

provide

a bas is

for

legislative

action to establish a state p o l icy to pro vi de

safe

and

adequate buildings for all children?

Organization of the Study
Following this introductory chapter, a review of select­
ed

literature

descr ibe s
study.
(57)

the

is p r e s e n t e d

in C h a p t e r

research me t h o d o l o g y

II.

that was

Chapter

III

used

the

in

A questionnaire was sent to a sample of fifty-seven

operating Michigan School Districts with three hundred

eleven

(311)

buildings.

This

9

questio nna ir e

was

used

to

collect district and building data.

Descriptive profiles

were developed from the collected data.

A second category

of data was collected and compiled with the questionnaire
which

included detailed information on each building cur­

rently operated by the district.
All data were statist ica ll y analyzed to provide

the

answers to the questions under investigation in this study.
Chapter IV describes the analysis of the data.
provides an summary of the findings,

Chapter V

conclusion and recom­

mendations .

Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study were:
1.

The

stud y was

limited

to

a sample

of M i c h i g a n

public school districts.
2.

The data collected were based on the knowledge and

perceptions of individual officials in each school district
and

on estimates

made

by those

officials

for conditions

existing at the point in time when they compiled the ques­
tionnaire.
3.

The financial data collected and status of deferred

needs were general indications of the financial and physical
status of a school district.

Unique situations,

in individ­

ual school districts such as involvement in pilot programs
or grants and recent bond issues to renovate buildings, may
have affected the data.

10

Chapter II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature is presented in two sections.
Section I describes the issues of financing school buildings
and capital

outlay projects

in public schools nationwide.

Section II describes the instructional issues that have been
identified as factors in educational achievement.

Section X

Financing Of Buildings And Capital Outlay Projects

In the early years of public schooling,
of school bui l d i n g was of little concern.

the financing
Most of the

mate r i a l s were native mate ria ls g at he r e d and p rep are d by
local community members.

Purchased materials were donated

or purchased on a "pay as you go" basis.

The building was

constructed by community members on a volunteer basis often
as a "building bee" which became a community social event.
The schools reflected the homes and businesses of the time,
being simple and fundamental structures for a small number
of students.

Schools

were

const ruc te d

by

the

community

members and there was no thought of tax rates or bond referendums.

(Wood, 1986)

11

The National

Educa tio n

Finance

Project

Study

(1970)

reported that 100 years ago when legislatures began enacting
laws to allow the issuance of bonds for public school dis­
tricts,

they were p r ima ri ly c oncerned with three things:

protection of the bond purchasers,
spent

on construction,

debt.

Historically,

and the

limitation on the amounts
limitation

facility planning has been a low prior­

ity in the overall school finance picture.
reorganization

of

of the public

school

districts

that

The widespread
occurred

1960s contributed to the demise of the local

in the

schoolhouse,

and the uni fie d or c o n sol id ate d school district with in­
creased student population became a new reality.
& Others,

1988)

State
Hawaii

(Thompson

school

financing

(a one-district state)

tures as a state.

fo rm u l a s are complex.

Only

supports all capital expendi­

The remainder of states have both local

and state controls on capital expenditures

for construction

and major renovation of school buildings.

"Thirteen states

use

a local

support model

w ith

caps

on the

districts can earmark for debt service.
use some type of joint state/local
1990)

amount

local

Thirty-six states

formula."

(Pipho, March

Inequities between districts with high and low tax

bases are evident in the district's buildings.

Just as the

schoolhouse reflected the neighborhood in the early 1900s,
it is generally true that today's school buildings reflect
the neighborhood that they serve.
Through the early

1900s,

the major responsibility of

12

financing the public school buildings rested with the local
community.

As late as 1941,

it was reported that only 12

states made some financial provision for capital outlay and
debt service for local school construction.

(Weber,

1941).

Many states have some provision for state aid in facil­
ity planning and construction.

The methods vary from state

to state as delineated below.
Full

St a t e S u p p o r t ;

Education

is the

state's

full

responsibility.
Matching Grants:

Grants awarded on a cost share ratio

that is determined by the legislature.
Flat G r a n t s :

All districts receive some aid,

usually

in a per pupil formula.
State Loans:

Districts may apply for state loan funds.

Building Authorities:

Private capital is used to lease

or purchase new facilities.
GENERAL STATE METHODS OF FINANCING BUILDING PROJECTS
Flat Grants
Full Funding
State Loans
Arkansas
Alaska
Alabama
Indiana
California
Indiana
Minnesota
Florida
Kentucky
Hawaii
N. Dakota
Mississippi
Virginia
Maine
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Maryland
South Carolina
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Egualized
Grants
Arizona
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York

Percentage
Matching
Delaware

13

No Aid
Colorado
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
S . Dakota
Texas

North Carolina
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wyoming

Building Authority
Indiana
Virginia
*Total is greater than 50 states because of multiple
predominant methods in some states.
(Thompson,

1990)

After World War II the number of states that contribut­
ed to capital outlay and debt service increased dramatical­
ly.

Po ss ibl e reasons

for this

that

few school building were built during the Depression

and during World War II,

increase

include the fact

a significant post war population

growth, with a surplus of state revenues and the growth of
minimum

st a t e

standards

for

facilities

(Barr

& Jordan,

1970) .
Since the 1960s,

mos t school

finance reform has

volved state equalization plans for school operations.

in­
Few

reform efforts have included building renovations and con­
s t r u c tio n.
facilities,

Despite

the

pressing

ne e d s

for e d u c a t i o n a l

school districts with low property values have

great difficulty

financing educational

facilities

in many

states.
State aid for capital outlay and debt service grew from
$78 million in 1951,

to $633 million in 1970,

mately $1.4 billion in 1979
1980).
aid,

Yet,

to approxi­

(United States Census Bureau,

even after this tremendous expansion of state

it is estimated that 80 percent of all funds for public

14

school

capital outlay and debt service originate as local

property tax (Wood, 197 0).
On the national

level,

despite

litigation addressing

fiscal equity during the 1970s and 1980s, capital outlay and
funding of debt service has remained virtually unchallenged,
and in most states remains primarily a local responsibility
(Wood & Ruch,
to t ota l

1986).

Capital outlay is small in comparison

expenditures

in education.

The

total

capital

outlay costs in 1979-80 amounted to approximately 7.5 pe r­
cent of all funds expended for public elementary and second­
ary e ducation in the U n it ed States
Bureau,

1980).

(United States Census

Capital outlay however,

concern and can impose disparity
imposed on local school districts

is generally a local

in the degree of burden
(Wood & Ruch,

1986).

An increasing number of states have shown an interest
in a d d r e s s i n g
State

the

issue

pa rti c i p a t i o n

in

of

f u n d ing

funding

of

c a p it al

school

facilities.

facilities

evolved as a consequence of deteriorating buildings.

has

A slow

but evident trend toward state involvement in capital outlay
projects has emerged.

In 1983, thirty-six states provided

some measure of direct assistance to school
capital outlay projects

(Wood & Alexander,

districts

198 3).

for

By 1985,

thirty-six states had developed some type of plan to assist
with capital outlay and debt service in the public schools
(Thompson & Camp, 1988).
Historically,

state governments have been reluctant to

finance the capital outlay and debt service of their local

15

school districts.
Stewart

As reported by Thompson,

Honeyman,

(1988), the 36 states vary from full state support

in Hawaii,

Maine

and M a r y l a n d

percent of debt service,
and Virginia,

t hat

attempt

to

fund

to New Hampshire that funds 30% of costs for

(Alabama, Arizona, Florida,

chusetts,

100

to loan programs in North Carolina

approved projects and 2 0% of long-term debt service.
states

and

Mississippi,

Virginia, Wisconsin,

Sou th

Wyoming)

Twelve

Indiana, Kentucky, Massa­

Carolina,

T e n ne ss ee,

Wes t

fund local district capital

outlay reserves on a per unit basis as part of their state
formulas.
Other states factor a district's ability to pay in the
c a l c u l at ion

of state

states (Connecticut,
Jersey,

New

Wisconsin)

York,

support

for capital

projects.

Ten

Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Pennsylvania,

Vermont,

W a s h in gto n

and

base their state contributions to capital outlay

funds and/or debt service on district wealth calculations
within

the

st ate

formula.

For example,

Pen nsy lv ani a reimburse districts

New Jersey

and

for debt service on a p ­

proved projects, according to an ability to pay ratio deter­
mined by an equalized district wealth

factor

(Thompson et

al., 1988).
A vast majority of the states limit the level of debt
against which a local district can borrow.
states

limit debt

capacity

prop e r t y valuation.

While

according
the base

to

In general,

37

some m e a sur e

of

against

wh ic h

limits is calculated differs from state to state,
al,

these

in gener­

the limits currently in place range from 2% of a d is­

16

tricts's assessed valuation in Indiana and 2.5% of assessed
valuation

in certain districts of Massachusetts to 29%

M o n t a n a and 25%
Three states

in

in the states of Colorado and Louisiana.

(Florida, Minnesota,

and Kentucky)

limit debt

to a level equivalent to the dollar value that a predeter­
mined

n umb er

of mills

will

generate.

While

Connecticut

limits debt to 450% of revenue raised in taxes each year,
Oregon limits debt according to the number of classes oper­
ated by a district times a state adjustment factor times the
assessed valuation.

At present only Tennessee and Virginia

have no debt limit.

Capital outlay in Michigan is limited

to a debt ceiling of 15% of the district's Assessed Value.
(Michigan School Code of 1976,
provision

for capital

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Nebraska,

Nevada,

outlay

380.1351)

The states with no

assistance

include Colorado,

Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana,

Ohio,

Oklahoma,

Oregon,

South Dakota and

Te x a s .
Funding for school
responsibility.

facilities

in Michigan is a local

Michigan does not have a program to provide

funds for school facilities.

Failure by the state to p ro­

vide support for school facilities has led to wide dispari­
ties in the quality of school housing
L o u i s i a n a doe s

not a l l o c a t e

(Hudson,
stat e

1988).

funds to local

education agencies to assist them with either school con­
s t r uct io n or debt service costs for public schools.
ineq ua lit y
Louis ia na

of

local

tax bases

is apparent

among

school

districts

The
in

in the financing of capital outlay

17

expenditures

(Geske & LaCost,

1988).

Financing school construction in Texas is presently the
r e sp o n s i b i l i t y
study

of

of the

school

local

facilities

school

districts.

estimated

A

it woul d

cost

billion to house the Texas school population by 1996
Betz,

& Middirala,

1987).

recent
$5.4
(Lutz,

One and one half billion dollars

of the estimated cost would have to be used to renovate,
replace or refurbish existing facilities

(Haas & Sparkman,

1988).
Capital outlay in Oklahoma is almost entirely a local
responsibility.

Because of the reliance on real and person­

al property for support of capital outlay,

capital

improve­

ments statewide would require expenditures of $620 billion
(Bass, 1988).
Even though 3 6 states provide some type of plan for the
financing
schools,

of c a p i tal

outlay

service

in p u b l i c

over 80% of the costs continues to be raised by

property tax procedures
Mexico,

and d ebt

(Wood & Alexander,

1983).

local bonding has historically supported

projects.

Hughes and Gallegos

(1988)

In New
facility

reported there are

vast inequities due to the reliance upon local wealth and
the

diffe re nce s

in assessed

v a lu ati on

across

the

state.

North Carolina's School Building Capital Fund relies heavily
on the local ability to pay and provides a relatively small
amount

of

funding

(King & MacPhail,

to meet
1988).

critical
In Ohio,

capital
capital

outlay

needs

outlay is fi­

nance d th rou gh a local property tax on real and personal
property in the district.

A state School Building As sist­

18

ance

Program provides

distressed districts

aid

(Hack,

only

to the m o s t

1988).

financially

In South Carolina state

funding of school construction began in 1951,

however,

in

1988-89 the amount school districts could expect to receive
for facilities purposes was $80 per pupil.

School districts

have had to and will continue to fund school construction as
part of the local district budget or through bonds funded by
prop er ty tax

(Stevenson

& Leonard,

1988).

As

a result,

school districts in South Carolina will require almost $1.5
billion to meet pressing needs
and major renovations
tion,

1987),

for new schools,

additions

(South Carolina Department of Educa­

Funds for capital outlay and debt service in

Arizona are provided through the state equalization program
for

financing

control limits,

schools.

Because

of

the

s t a t e's

r e v enu e

growing school districts with a limited tax

base have difficulty keeping pace with school facility needs
(Jordan,

1988).

Even with the increased participation by these states
in funding capital outlay projects and debt service,
districts with state assistance
are facing similar school

in funding capital

facility needs

the

outlay

found in school

districts in the states with no provision for capital outlay
and d e b t

service

funding.

The

stat e pl a n s

for capital

outlay and debt service are inadequate and inequitable
meeting the present school facility needs

in

(Thompson et al.,

1988) .
The poor condition

of America's

19

school buildings was

described in a January,

1983

joint report of the American

Association of School Administrators

(AASA), the Council of

the Great City Schools and the National School Boards Asso­
ciation.

One hundred school systems were surveyed and the

results documented billions
ferred maintenance,
wi t h

federal

requirements.

and

capital

state

of dollars of accumulated d e ­
improvements,

environmental,

and compliance

healt h

and

safety

The study offered $25 billion as a conserva­

tive estimate of the total accumulated costs for repair of
the

nation's

public

elementary

a nd

secondary

sc hools.

Districts were found to have budgeted approximately 6.7% of
their annual budgets on maintenance and capital improvements
for the 1983 r eporting year as compared to 8.6% spent in
1970

and

9.6%

in 1960.

Percentages were

show n to have

fallen steadily since a high of 14.1% in 1920.

The develop­

ment of deferred maintenance in many school district budgets
has

been

identified

as

largely

exis ti ng facility needs
The

great

de mand

for new

responsible

(Leggett,
school

Murphy,

for

ignoring

& Hill,

construction

1983).

in growing

areas forced many school districts to overlook maintenance
and m o d e r n i z a t i o n of old schools

(Graves,

1983).

Graves

also contended in his report that the design of many build­
ings constructed during the 194 0s and 1950s did not antici­
pate change in educational programs and those schools are
now obsolete.
By 1987,
1987,

th e s i t u a t i o n had not changed.

a report by the

Council

of the Great

In A u g u s t

City Schools

documented that the cumulative costs of deferred building

20

maintenance

in all school districts

still be $25 billion (Green, 1987).

in the count ry would

The report offered that

the reason for this backlog of deferred maintenance is the
small amount of available resources for instructional p r o ­
grams or for facility needs.

The report recommends that the

situation can only be improved with increased funding from
local,

state and federal sources

and new construction.

In 1989,

for deferred maintenance
a report by the Education

Writers Association found that one of every four buildings
is in poor condition and that more then half needed mainte­
nance and major repairs.
The current status of school facility problems in not
limited by location or general categories of
ban or rural districts.

districts

had

subur­

In 1985, Honeyman and Stewart using

the Replacement Cost Index model,
school

urban,

found that rural Kansas

deferred mai nt e n a n c e

building needs exceeding $25 million.

and

Devin

repair

(1985)

additional evidence in Kansas urban school districts.

of

found
Devin

concluded that a positive relationship between local wealth
and the condition of school

facilities had sig ni fic ant ly

added to needs for deferred maintenance.
Council

of the Gr e a t

City

Schools

The report of the

(1987)

estimated

the

cumulative cost of deferred building maintenance in the 44
largest urban districts nationwide to be $5 billion.
O t h e r state r e p o r t s
Virginia,

c o n t a i n s i m i l a r data.

a trial judge in Pauley v. Kelly

(1982)

the schools in several counties as deplorable,

21

In We s t
described

with serious

he a l t h hazards,
disrepair.

not ad eq uately heated and in substantial

The judge identified two principal problems for

the c o nd iti on of school

facilities

total

state

inability

construction

on the

in West Virginia;

level

and t he p r o b l e m s

to

finance

i nhe r e n t

in the

the

f ac ili ty
tax

levy

system.
The Replacement Cost

Index

(RCI)

was

first developed

and applied to school facilities in a 1985 study by Honeyman
and Stewart.

This index attempted to address the issue of

historic cost verses current replacement cost ratio analy­
sis.

All original and improvement costs are given in hi s­

toric dollars while the current replacement cost is given in
the current dollar value of the facility.

For example,

the original cost of a building was $500,000,

improvements

and renovations cost $400,000 over a span of years,
current replacement cost

is $3,000,000;

if

and the

then the $500,000

plus $400,000 divided by $3,000,000 gives a Replacement Cost
Index

(RCI)

of three

tenths

(.3).

A high value

for the

computed index for a school building indicates that repair
and renovation had maintained the value and condition of the
structure over time.

By using the index, comparisons of the

relative condition of facilities can be made among a number
of buildings.
H o n e y m a n et al.
Index

(RCI)

(1988),

u s i n g the R e p l a c e m e n t

Cost

to estimate the condition of school facilities

in small/rural districts in the United States found that the
need for new construction and the renovation of many exist­
ing structures is common throughout the nation.

22

This study

concluded that there is an overwhelming inability of local
districts to fund capital outlay at levels needed to keep
their buildings adequate for current and projected student
and staff enrollments,

safe according to the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)

requirements,

accessible to special and handicapped populations.
and Stewart state,

and

Honeyman

evidence from this study suggests that

school buildings are deteriorating rapidly and that mainte­
nance needs are increasing as rapidly.
do no t p r o v i d e

equalization

aid

to

Because most states
local

districts

for

facility purposes, the costs of improvements and replacement
of obsolete buildings generally falls to the local property
tax mechanism.
Honeyman and Stewart

(1985)

deferred maintenance problems,

found that in addition to

constant changes imposed by

different levels of government affected the need for facili­
ties and maintenance.
abatement,

Government mandates, such as asbestos

access for the handicapped,

and stringent safety

and fire code com pliance were identified in their study.
Testing for lead in drinking water and radon detection are
recent conditions

that the public had been advised of by the

media and schools

are encouraged, but as of this writing are

not required,

to undergo expensive tests to detect.

Public Law 94-142

and Section 504

of 1973 required

that facilities be accessible

capped children.

(Smith,

Both

of the Rehabilitation Act
for ha nd i­

1984)

Other reports have identified regulatory requirements

23

as adding to the problems of deferred maintenance.

Removal

of asbestos hazards was a top priority in most United States
school systems in 1984 as reported by Gardener
as r ep ort ed by Mc C o r m i c h
problem

continues

to

(1985),

present

and Hill

(1984),

(1985).

maintenance

and

and
This

budgetary

problems to school districts in 1992.
Graves

(1982)

examined the wide variance

in require-

ments imposed by state governing agencies upon school facil­
ities.

In his report,

a small trend to move toward more

state funding of school construction is identified.
and Hertz

(1984)

r ep orted that a m aj ori ty of states have

mandatory requirements
wit h

energy

and

Clark

fire

for accessibility by the handicapped
safety

as two other

areas

of major

concern.
There

als o

appears

to be

a growing

concern

by

the

courts regarding the ability of school districts to provide
adequate

facilities.

The Te n t h A m e n d m e n t

to

the U.

S.

Constitution delegates all powers to the states that are not
s p eci f i c a l l y reserved to the federal government.
constitution is silent on education,

the responsibility for

education falls to the individual states.
San Antonio Independent School

As the

In "Rodriquez v.

District"

(1973)

the U.

S.

Supreme Court refused equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
is

important because

it denied

The "Rodriquez" case

claims

of educat ion

as a

fundamental right under the federal constitution. References
to capital outlay have been made

in numerous court cases.

There is a history of litigation that intimates that states

24

m a y i n c r eas ing ly be hel d r esponsible
districts.

As

litigation

has

for assis ti ng local

evolved,

e q u i t y has

be e n

subjected to three standards.
Resource Accessibility:

Do students have equal access

to appropriate resources to meet educational needs?
Wealth Neutrality:

Are variations in revenue unaccept-

ably related to local wealth.
Taxpayer E f f o r t :
revenue,

Does equal tax effort produce equal

thereby guaranteeing equal protection.

(Thompson,

1990)
In Shofsstall v. Hollins

(1973), Arizona,

it was noted

that funds for capital improvement were more closely tied to
district wealth than funds for operating expenses and that
the capacity of a school district to raise revenue by bond
issues is a function of assessed valuation.
Robinson v. Cahill

The court,

in

(197 3) noted that the state's obligation

included capital expenditures, without which required educa­
tional

o p po rtu nit y could not be provided.

suits in the state Supreme Courts,
California
"Serrano"

had the w i d e s t

that variations

re l ate d to educational

"Serrano"

impact.

The

Of the equity
(1971; 197 6) in
court

ruled

in

in local wealth were ultimately

opportunity;

va riations

in wealth

were violations of equity standards and that equity requires
education to be a function of the wealth of the state as a
whole.

In S e r r a n o

II

(1976),

provisions

we r e m a d e

for

deferred maintenance funds.

In Board of Education of the

City of Cincinnati v. Walker

(1979), the court decided that

25

a effective and efficient system of schools is not met if any
school had a need for teachers,
ment.

funds, buildings or equip­

The court also showed a concern for capital outlay

funding in Diaz v. Colorado State Board of Education

(1977)

stating that some districts were better able that others to
pro vid e adequate facilities.
Board

that

the

fiscal capacity of school districts to raise revenue

for

bond

of Education

redemption

(1982),

In Luian v . Co lorado State

and

property wealth.

the

capital

court

conc lud ed

reserve was

Most recently,

a function

capital outlay

was an issue in Christiensen v. Graham (1988)

financing

in Florida and

Helena E lem entary School v . State of Mon tan a
Florida,

of

(1988).

In

the court ruled in summary judgment that the state

system for financing education did not violate equal oppor­
tunity.

The Montana court,

system

of

funding

public

state's constitution,
pendence
education
Texas,

on

local

1988) .

In Texas,

decla re d

the

found that the state's

schools

w as v i o l a t i v e

and the court attacked

school

f i n an ce p l a n s

Missouri,

however,

d i s t r i c t wealth.
i nvo lv ed

Other

courts

state

incl ude

Edctewood ISP v ■ Kirby

(1987) , the courts

of

school

finance

was that

funds

unconstitutional.

according to Haas and

for school

equipment was to be part of the remedy.
decision,

facility d e ­

(Honeyman et al.,

system

(1988),

the

Alaska and New Jersey

What is noteworthy about the ruling,
Sparkman

in the

of

facilities and

According to the

the state must take legislative action to ensure

that each school district has the same ability to obtain by
state legislative appropriation or by local

26

taxation,

or

both,

funds for educational expenditures,

ties and equipment.

including facili­

This decision was defeated on appeal

but a new c o m m is sio n was
school buildings in Texas

formed with $5 milli on to study
(Education Week,

1989).

The issue that school facility problems are more wide­
spread in urban areas has also emerged in court challenges
to state finance systems.
(1987).

the

court

city's schools,
capital

In Jenkins v. State of Missouri

i m p ose d

stringent

improvement

of the

including an order to issue $150 million in

improvement bonds to correct

In Robinson v . Cahill

facility conditions.

(1973), the New Jersey Supreme Court

ruled that the state system of financing public education
wa s

unconstitutional

because

it d i s c r i m i n a t e d

against

property-poor districts in violation of the state constitu­
tional provision for public education.
Court challenges to methods for funding rural and small
school districts also exists.
System v. McWherter (1988)

In Tennessee Small Counties

facilities were cited as an issue

in rural and small school districts because of the state's
failure to provide adequate funding under the state consti­
tution.

In Arizona,

len ge to the

rural schools are considering a chal­

state's

fina nce

formula.

States,

such

as

Michigan, which offer no support for capital outlay funding
place the burden for providing school buildings entirely on
the local community.

Public policy in Michigan is to not

include educat ion as an equal right,
dence.

regardless of r e s i ­

Article VIII of the Michigan Constitution of 1963

27

provides a system of free public elementary and secondary
schools.

Discrimination

religion,

creed,

is

forbidden

color or national

on the

origin.

i ssu es

There

of

is no

reference to equal educational opportunity for all students.

Section II

Instructional Concerns and School Facilities
The appropriateness of facilities

to the

educational

program is another factor that must be considered
review.

in this

In the past, school buildings were constructed with

little attention given to changing trends
programs.

in educational

The role of the school facility in the education­

al process was beginning to be defined in 1979
1979).

Today,

(Weinstein,

facilities' planners design facilities to fit

programs and enhance their operation

(Griffith,

1984).

An

important relationship exists between a program of instruc­
tion and the physical
found (Eubanks,

1985).

environment
Eubanks'

in which the program is

list of criteria for evalu­

ating a school building includes determining the adequacy of
the facility to hours of the prescribed program of instruc­
tion,

identifying

program,
ties.

features

that

add or d e t ra ct

from the

and identifying major deficiencies in the facili­

Eubanks contended that evaluation of these

factors

and competent p lanning can result in a facility that e n ­
hances learning,

increases teaching efficiency and minimizes

the deterioration of a building.

Truby

(1985)

in a review

of the Pauley v . Kelly court decision concluded that high

28

quality educational programs must be housed in high quality
facilities.

An Educational Research Service

tion (Robberson,

(ERS)

publica­

1985) summarized presentation of the effec­

tive schools research and reported that maintaining adequate
facilities was found to be important in effective schools.
Reeves

(1985)

found that better student learning is achieved

as a result of an improved aesthetic environment.
Swindel

(1986),

as pa r t of the N a t i o n a l

Association Task Force on School Facilities,

G ove rnors'

reported that

states have a responsibility to insure a healthy and safe
environment for students, who are required by law to attend
school.

F u rth erm or e,

students

facility in which drafts,

noise,

should

be

entitled

heat or cold,

2000,

a

and general

disrepair do not impede their opportunity to learn.
(1987)

to

Blair

in the San Diego Long Range Facilities Plan 1986recognized that environment can affect

emphasized the importance of physical

learning and

surroundings to the

learning process.
In
Project

th e

University

(1971)

of

Michigan

Research

Institute

no solid proof or support was found for the

proposition that the physical

environment

factor in each child's learning.

However,

is an important
Earthman

(1985)

wrote that conventional wisdom in the area of school plant
pl an nin g

and design

seems

to

indicate

that

the physical

environment does have an effect upon the behavior,

achieve­

ment and performance of students and teachers who occupy a
building.

Earthman states,

"but this is just a belief that

29

cannot be empirically demonstrated by those who hold to it."
Rossmiller
research,

(1987),

in the

review

of

res ource

a l l oc ati on

found that adequate facilities and instructional

materials are necessary if a school is to be effective,

but

concluded that fine facilities and abundant materials alone
will not ensure school effectiveness.

In a 1987 study of

five urban school districts,

Walker,

Corcoran,

and White,

concluded that the physical condition of the building was:
(a) not dependent on grade level of school;
ent on age of buildings;

(c) dependent on the condition of

the neighborhood surrounding the school;
the role of district policy;
leadership;

and

(f)

(b) not depend­

(d)

dependent on

(e) dependent on the principal

dependent

r e g u lar p r e v en tiv e maintenance.

on t i m e l y
Teachers

renovation
intervi ewe d

and
in

this study stated that physical condition of the building
had direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale,
sense of personal safety,

feelings of effectiveness in the

classroom, and on the general learning environment.
gen

(1988)

found that although there

Verste-

is little or no r e ­

search regarding the relationship between student learning
and facilities,

or physical plant and teacher satisfaction

some facilities' planners contend
"that building new schools could provide the
key to true restructuring of education, as
current structural arrangements are redesigned
to better provide the workplace and learning
conditions which foster excellence, equity,
and renewal in the education sector." Verstengen,
(1988)

30

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the popula­
tion and sample,

sampling method and statistical procedures

used in this study.

The design of the study and the order

of research described in this chapter are under the follow­
ing headings:
strument,

Population and Sample,

Data Collection

Procedure for Data Collection,

In­

Treatment of Data

and Methods of Analysis.

Population and Sample
The p o p u l a t i o n of the st udy

is the

524

school districts in the State of Michigan.

K-12

public

A sample of the

population was selected to distribute the sample over a wide
geographical area,
(SEV)

and disparity of State Equalized Value

per pupil.

Appendix A shows the eight counties se­

lected with the geographic diversity of the counties.
selection ut ilized
Jun e

30,

Education.

1992,

"Bulletin 1013"

published

by

The counties were

The

for fiscal year ended

the M i c h i g a n

Department

of

selected exam ini ng multiple

school districts in the same county,

total State Equalized

Value (SEV), SEV per pupil, disparity of SEV per pupil among
districts,

number of pupils per district and geographical

location to represent rural,
u r b a n district.

Appendix

resort,

city,

suburban and one

B is a l i s t i n g

of the

s amp le

chosen showing enrollment and SEV per pupil.
The average SEV per pupil in the state of Michigan was
$91,805 for fiscal year 1992-93.

31

The average SEV per pupil

for the

respondent

1991-92.

districts

is

$87,017

for

fiscal

year

The legislature imposed a "freeze" on SEV for the

1992 calendar year.
five percent

The respondent districts were within

(5%) of the state average.

The average number

of pupils per district in the state was 2,974 for 1992-93.
The respondent districts had an average number of pupils of
2,423.

The lower number can be accounted for in the average

because only one urban district was included in the sample.
Wi t h the large number of buildings

in an urban district,

completion of the survey questionnaire became a very time
co nsu min g task.

It was

resolved

that

an urban

district

would not choose to complete the survey due to the time and
expense of assigning personnel to complete the survey.
Ca r e was t a k e n to
rural setting,

inc lu de d i s t r i c t s that wer e

in a

districts that were located in a resort area

with characteristically high SEV, districts that were in a
small city setting and one urban district.
with the Superintendent
urban di strict

and Deputy Superintendents

to explain

enlist their ass istance

The writer met

the purpose

of the

in the

survey

and

in co mpleting the questionnaire.

The counties were selected that contained multiple school
districts

and h a d the

abo ve

specified

characteristics.

Appendix A shows the geographical diversity of the counties
selected.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2

list the districts and buildings,

presenting a profile of those reporting

with the high, low,

mean and standard deviation shown for all respondent d i s­

32

tricts.

The

po p u l a t i o n

selected

is b r o ad ly

di st rib ute d

among the districts in the state and represents a meaningful
group in terms of size, geographical location, community and
level of tax base behind each student.
The sample contained three hundred eleven
ings in the fifty -se ve n
fifty-seven

(57)

(57)

districts

turned the survey,

distri cts selected.

selected,

thirty-four

representing sixty percent

sample and one hundred seventy-three
research was exploratory in nature.
explore

the

r e la ti ons hip

(311)

between

build­
Of the

(34)

(60%)

re ­

of the

(173) buildings.

The

The study attempted to
the w eal th

of

a school

district as measured by SEV per pupil and conditions of the
build in gs

as

repor ted

on the

survey

de s c r i b i n g

ma i n t e n a n c e as rep or ted by the respondents.

The writer

attempted to study building conditions and needs
tionship

to c o m m u n i t y w e a l t h

as m e a s u r e d

deferred

in rela­

by b u d g e t

and

SEV/pupil.
If the findings can contribute to a better understand­
ing of the unique
tricts,

bui l d i n g

needs

of var io us

school

dis­

it will provide new direction for further research

in equity of facilities as a goal

of educational

finance.

The study of related literature reveals many law suits on
the equity between districts.

Equity with per pupil spend­

ing in operations has been a major contention among school
districts,

and the public,

equity is reflected in legisla­

tive debates on in formula, out of formula school districts.
Specific recommendations for further research will be found
in Chapter V.

33

Data Collection Instrument
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was use d to c o l l e c t data
school

in the sample.

from several
the

form was

The form,

Ap pe n d i x C, was adapted

forms used in other studies.
to p r o vid e

from each

information

The purpose of

con si ste nt with

the

purpose of the study.
The questionnaire was reviewed by four individuals with
recognized experience in the field of public school adminis­
tration and school finance.
school

superintendents

administration.

Two of the four are practicing

with

advanced

degrees

in school

The superintendents were asked to review

the instrument with particular attention to maximizing the
return as school superintendents receive numerous question­
na ires

each year.

The third

reviewer

is employed by an

Intermediate School District in a position of Research and
Development and is well versed in statical analysis of data.
The fourth reviewer works as a consultant for a firm dealing
exclusively with the public sector.
revision from these

The recommendations for

four reviewers were

incorporated

into

the final form before it was mailed to the sample identified
in the study.
The data c o ll ec ted were used to develop de scriptive
data of the school districts surveyed.

The descriptive data

are displayed as Tables 3-1 and 3-2.

The tables show the

high,

low, mean and standard deviation for major categories

in the survey.

The tables are separated into a descriptive

profile of districts and of buildings.

34

The questionnaire consists of two parts.

The district

survey is a general survey of current data on SEV, budgets,
deferred maintenance,

debt retirement and projected use of

the b uil d i n g

and ten years.

survey

in five

requested

information

renovation/additions,
usage,

on

the

The b u i l d i n g
age,

replacement value,

accessibility

for the

deferred maintenance projects

size,

handicapped
and a general

the building by the respondent.

cost,

level

co s t

of

grade level

a nd

d isabled,

assessment of

Using the data gathered,

was possible to describe the resources of each district and
the

bu il d i n g

district.

in fra structure

The tables

of

that

each b u i l d i n g

follow prese nt

w i thi n

the data

composite and range of school districts surveyed.

Table 3 - 1

Descriptive Profile of Michigan School Districts in the Sample
High___________ Low
Enrollment
Dist. SEV
SEV/Pupil
Total Budget
Maint. Bidget
Cap. Out o f M&O
Deferred Maint.
Debt Levy (mills)

22,349

136

$1,551,280,000
$193,875
$128,000,000

$7,800,000
$28,070

$7,622,101
$1,360,000
$38,899,751
9

$856,000
$57,923
$2,500
$0
0

35

Mean
Standard Deviation
3,807
2,423
$309,598,206
$212,331,574
$40,819
$87,017
$21,755,369
$12,375,043
$1,082,467
$135,535
$1,981,228
3.08

$1,512,045
$258,207
$6,753,000
2.61

the
as a

Table 3 - 2
Descriptive Profile of 173 School Buildings
N
Enrollment

167

High
1,628

Year Built
Orginal cost
Renovation cost
Replacement cost
Deferred Projects
R oof
Heat
Structure

167
83
129
159

1991
$8,000,000
$5,500,000
$308,000,000

33
32
29
56
25
33
166

$200,000
$425,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$2,225,000
$1,500,000
$4,695,400

Technology
Grounds
Other
Total

Low

Mean
Standard Deviation
478
279

70
1871
$140,000
$0
$400,000

1953
$1,444,634
$991,124
$7,727,297

19
$1,817,229
$1,170,092
$24,424,789

$1,500
$5,000
$6,500

$75,167
$111,656
$234,879

$15,000
$5,000
$500
$1,700

$126,661
$162,920
$181,564
$410,102

$56,015
$103,927
$351,823
$169,596
$455,117
$293,780
$763,261

Procedure for Data Collection
The questionnaire was mailed to the Superintendent of
each of the schools in the sample.

Multiple copies corre­

sp on d i n g to the n umber of buildings

in each district,

as

listed in "Michigan Education Directory" was included with
each district survey.
by hand,

A cover letter,

addressed and signed

expl ain ed the purpose of the survey.

letter is attached as App end ix D.

The cover

For those who did not

respond to the questionnaire in the first twenty-one days, a
second copy of the cover letter and questionnaire was mailed
out three weeks later.
note stating,

The second letter had a hand written

"Your response is important to this project

and will be deeply appreciated.
first m a i l i n g tw en ty- two

(22)

36

Thank you, Dean."
responses,

From the

or thirty-eight

percent

(38%), were received within the three week period.

Two

more

(2)

percent

responses,

(42%),

period.

br inging

the total

to

forty-two

were received within the second three week

Both m ai lings

included a stamped s elf-addressed

envelope for the return response.

An additional ten

(10)

responses were received after telephone calls to all the
non-respondents over the next thirty days.

The additional

responses received brought the total to thirty-four (34), or
sixty percent

(60%).
Treatment of Data

Four null hypothesis were developed as a result of the
questions

for research posed in Chapter I.

Each null h y ­

pothesis was treated independently.
Null Hypothesis:
HOI

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships between the condition of school buildings as measured
by the State Equalized Value
tors:

age

of the

budget per pupil,

(SEV)

bui ldings,

and the following fac­

maintenance

and

operation

estimated cost of de ferred maintenance

projects per pupil, amount of remaining debt of the district
and amount of debt levy.
HO2

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships betw ee n the amount of deferred m a int en anc e and the
respondents'

assessment of the condition of the buildings,

age of the building and Replacement Cost Index (RCI).
H03

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships be tw een the amount of deferred m a i n t en anc e and the

37

categories
systems,

of d e f e r r e d m a i n t e n a n c e

building structure,

of

roofing,

technology needs,

heating

grounds,

and

other needs.
H04

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships between the total district budget and the maintenance
and operation budget or the capital outlay portion of the
maintenance and operation budget.
Methods of Analysis
The statistical program used was Statistical Package for
the Social

Sciences

statical package,
reviewed.

(SPSS).

In the quest for a computer

several computer magazine articles were

Messages were submitted on a computer bulletin

board requesting recommendations for a statistical program.
In every instance of review and in responses from individu­
als, SPSS was mentioned and the most frequently recommended.
Among the noted users were Mi ch i g a n Department of Social
Services,

the United States Mint, United States Department

of Labor and numerous

colleges and universities.

the top selling statistical
computers

in 1992.

owns a co p y

software package

and w e r e

is

for personal

Ingham Intermediate School

of SPSS

SPSS

District

ki n d e n o u g h to a l l o w this

writer access to their computers and the program.
A correlation analysis was applied to test if a signif­
icant rel ati ons hi p existed between the SEV/pupil
following factors:
operation

budget

age of the buildings,
per

pupil,

estimated

maintenance projects per pupil,

maintenance and

cost

of d e f e r r e d

amount of remaining debt of

the district, and debt levy in the district.

38

and the

A statistically significant correlation will provide
evidence that the variables are related, although the magni­
tude of the relationship may not be large.
do e s

not

i mpl y a c aus e

variables.
indicate

and

e f fe ct

A correlation

relationship

between

A sta tistically significant correl ati on will

the

s tr ength

and

direction

of the

relationship

between variables.
Null Hypothesis Two dealt with the amount of deferred
maintenance per pupil,

the respondents'

assessment of the

condition of the building and Replacement Cost Index

(RCI).

Respondents individual assessment is a subjective judgment.
Testing

the

correlation

between

the

amount

of d e f e r r e d

maintenance per pupil and the respondent1s assessment of the
building established a base of information on the usefulness
of a subjective judgment to assess the condition of build­
ings.
Null Hypothesis Three examined the amount of deferred
maintenance and the categories maintenance is deferred in,
namely,

roofing,

heating systems,

nology needs, grounds,
icance was

building structure,

and other needs.

tested using

each category

tech­

Statistical signif­
to determine

if a

correlation exists and to identify the categories of great­
est and least correlation,

if any exists.

Null Hypothesis Four examines the correlation between
the total budget and maintenance and operation budgets and
the capital outlay portion of the maintenance and operation
bu dget.

39

In addition to testing the statistical significance of
the null hypotheses,

tables were generated to establish a

b u i l d i n g pro fil e showing comparisons of b u il di ngs
cat ego ri es
debt,

of

d ef err ed maintenance,

amount

of

in the

remaining

age of the buildings and the categories of deferred

maintenance.

The tables are useful to provide a data base

to use with other school districts throughout the State of
Michigan.
The correlations tested were:
SEV/pupil with:

Age of buildings
Maintenance budget
Deferred maintenance
Amount of district debt
Debt levy of the district

Deferred Maintenance with

Age of Buildings
Assessment of building
Replacement Cost Index

Deferred Maintenance with

Catagories of
Roofing
Heating
Building structure
Technology needs
Grounds
Other needs

Total Budget with

Main. & Opera. Budget
Capital Outlay of M&O

In addition to the correlations reported,
of the question,

the results

"List any building that will not be used in

five (5) and ten (10) years from today" were reported.
All correlations in the analysis are Pearson ProductMoment

correlations

"correlation" or "r").

(henceforth

referred

to

simply

as

The purpose of the correlation is to

reflect the "relationship" between one

40

(or more)

variables

with another.

In other words, when something happens to a

particular variable

(e.g. going "up" or "down" in value) the

c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w ee n

it and another va ri abl e will reflect

what happens to the value of the second variable
"up" or "down"?).
be

"continuous"

(will it go

Variables that are to be correlated must

(interval or r a t i o ) ; they must be numeric

and there must be equal distances between the points of the
m e a s u r e m e n t scale

(e.g.,

inches on a ruler for measu rin g

height or seconds on a clock for measuring time).
These correlations are computed by first converting the
values of the two variables,
scores.

Then the cross-products of the two Z scores,

each case,
products,

for each case into Fischer Z

are computed.
over all cases,

cr os s - p r o d u c t

Next,

value

is the

the sum of all the cross-

is computed.

Lastly,

is computed by div iding

products by the number of cases.
co rre l a t i o n .

A

negative

the

the average

sum

of

cross-

This average cross-product

It can v a r y b e t w e e n

perfect negative correlation) and a +1.0
correlation).

for

-1.0

(a

(a perfect positive

correl at ion means

that

"high"

scores on one of the variables in question tend to go with
"low" scores on the other variable.

A positive correlation

means that high scores on one of the variables tend to go
with high scores on the other variable.
zero means

there

is no consistent

A correlation of

relationship

between

scores on one va ria b l e and scores on the other variable.
The further the correlation departs from zero

(in either a

positive or negative di rec ti on) , the more perfect or con­
sistent the relationship between variables.

41

A correlation will have what is referred to a "proba­
bility" associated with it that will range between zero and
+1.0.

This probability is determined by relating the value

of the correlation itself with the number of cases
to as the

"N")

used

to c a l c u l a t e

the

(referred

correlation.

The

probability of the correlation tells us what the odds are
that the correlation is really different from zero,
the N and the value of the correlation itself.
ty of 0.01 means there

is only

correlation is really different
example,

that

the

1 chance

+0.45 calculated over 10 cases.

A probabili­

in 100 that the

from zero.

correlation b e t we en

given

Lets

say,

for

two v ari a b l e s

was

For the sake of illustra­

tion we will assume the probability for this correlation was
0.34.

This m e a n s

there

correlation of +0.45 is,
from zero.

are

34 c h a n c e s

is fairly h i g h

significantly different from zero.
p r oba b i l i t y of 0.05
chance in 100)

100

th a t

the

in reality , not really different

When this happens we say that,

reported correlation

in

even though the

(+0.45),

it

is not

In the social sciences a

(only 5 chances

in 100)

or 0.01

(one

are the conventional probability levels used

to determine the significance of the correlation.

If the

numbe r of cases used to compute the cor re l a t i o n were

in ­

creased to 100 instead of 10, the probability would undoubtly become significant at least 0.05 or lower.

42

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The results
test

e ach

of the

of the null

chapter.

statistical
hypothesis

analysis performed to
are

presented

in this

Summ ary data tables are used to describe those

findings.

Summaries of data from the qu est ionnaires are

presented, as well.

FINDINGS RELATED TO THE NULL HYPOTHESIS TESTED
The Relationship of the State Equalized Value (SEV) per
pupil and the variables of age of building,
operation budget per pupil,
cost per pupil,

maintenance and

district deferred maintenance

amount of remaining debt of the district,

and amount of debt levy.
HOI

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships between the condition of school buildings as measured
by the State Egualized Value
tor s :

age

of the

(SEV)

and the following fac­

b u i ldings. maintenance

and

operation

budget per p u p i l . e stimated cost of defer re d maintena nce
projects per pu p i l . amount of remaining debt of the district
and amount of debt levy.
The

Pearson

Produ ct -Mo men t

Co rrelation Analysis was

used to test the strength and di rection of the r e l a t i o n ­
ships.

Correlation for each of the

(age of the buildings,

independent variables

Maintenance and Operation Budget per

pupil,

estimated cost of deferred maintenance projects per

pupil,

amount of remaining debt of the district and amount

43

of debt levy)

and dependent variable,

summarized in table 4-1.

the SEV per pupil are

At the 0.05 level,

cally significant relationship was

found.

one statisti­
A significant

correlation was found between the debt levy of the district
and the SEV/pupil

(r= -.3413).

This negative

indicated the relationship is inverse.
the S E V / p u p i l

increased,

the

debt

correlation

It was found that as
levy

of th e

district

decreased.

As the SEV of a district increases fewer mills

need to be

levied to pay the debt

levy of the district.

Debt levy is determined by dividing the annual principle and
interest by the total
l o g i cal

to

a s su me

SEV of the district.

a building

designed

It would be

for two

thousand

(2000) pupils would be very similar in districts with d if ­
ferent SEVs.

If one district had twice the SEV per pupil as

a second district and their annual debt was exactly the same
t h e n the debt

levy w o u l d be o n e - h a l f

the

amount

in the

district with the higher SEV.
The calculations between the SEV/pupil and age of the
b u i l din gs,

maintenance

and

operation

budget

per

pupil,

estimated cost of deferred maintenance projects per pupil,
amount of remaining debt of the district and amount of debt
levy; not only had relatively low correlations but were also
not found to be statistically significant as measured by the
probability (p) using .05 as the measure of significance.

44

Table 4-1
Statistical Correlation of Null Hypothesis 1
Correlations:

Bldg.
Age

M/0 Budget
per pupil

SEV/Pupil
p=

-.0281
.719

Correlations:

Deferred Maint.
District Cost

SEV/ Pupil
P=

-.0918
.617

.1623
.359

.0568
.758
Debt Levy
(Mills)
-.3413
.048

The State Equalized Value

Amount of
Debt ($$)
.1827
.362

(SEV) per pupil is an indica­

tor of wealth of a school district.
Value

Deferred Maint.
per pupil

The State E qualized

(SEV) per pupil could very well have a direct correla­

tion with the amount of debt a district has incurred.
example,

For

if district A and district B with the same number

of pupils build identical buildings, costing the same amount
and both districts have chosen to bond the debt over twentynine

(29)

years with

identical

rates

of

interest

on the

bonds with p rinciple retired at the rate of $100,000 per
year;

then the following illustrates how State Equalized

Value (SEV) per pupil is deemed an indicator of wealth for a
school district.

45

$ 120,000

SEV/pupil =

District A

Principle retired =

$ 100,000

Number of pupils =

2,400

District SEV =

$288,000,000

Then, Debt levy is .35 mills
District B
SEV/pupil =

$60,000

Principle retired =

$ 100,000

Number of pupils =

2,400
$144,000,000

District SEV =

Then, Debt levy is .7 mills
The ratio of SEV/pupil to debt levy is

directly corre­

lated.
The writer then looked at the other variables shown in
Table 4-2.

The respondent districts surveyed reported that

the SEV/pupil when correlated with building age did not have
a significant

correlation.

Th e

districts

with

a high

SEV/pupil did not have newer buildings than districts with a
low SEV/pupil.

The SEV/pupil did not have a significant

correlation with the Maintenance and Operation Budget per
pupil.

The connection was not made that as the SEV/pupil

increased that the total maintenance and operation budget of
the district increased.

The SEV/pupil did not have a sig­

nificant correlation with the deferred maintenance per pupil
nor wi t h

the

total

district

deferred m a i n t e n a n c e

costs.

Deferred maintenance per pupil nor total district deferred

46

maintenance can be isolated as corresponding to the wealth of
a district as measured by SEV/pupil.
of debt of a district

Likewise,

the amount

is not related to the w e a l t h

of a

district.
The relationship of the amount of deferred maintenance
and variables of the respondents assessment of the condition
of the buildings

(assessment). age of the buildings, and the

Replacement Cost Index (RCI).
H02

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships bet wee n the amount of d ef erred m a i n t e n a n c e and the
r e s p o n d e n t s ’ assessment of the condition of the buildings,
age of the building, and Replacement Cost Index (RCI).
The

Pearson

Pr odu ct-Moment

C o r r e lat ion An al y s i s was

used to test the strength and d i r ect ion of the r e l a t i o n ­
ships.

Correlation for each of the

(respondents,

independent variables

assessment of the individual building condi­

tion, age of the buildings, and Replacement Cost Index (RCI)
of each building)

and the dependent variable of the amount

of deferred maintenance for each building are summarized in
Table 4-2.

At the 0.05 level there were no statistically

significant relationships

found.

found to be true in every category.

47

The null hypothesis was

Table 4-2
Statistical Correlation of Null Hypothesis 2
Correlations:
Deferred Maint
P=

RCI

Bldg
Age

Bldg.
Assessment

1396
.314

0626
.497

1650
.073

The deferred maintenance as referred to in table 4-2 is
the deferred maintenance of each individual building and not
the total deferred maintenance of the district.

The. table

and correlations are related to individual buildings,
out regard

for total dis tr ict statistics.

with­

The amount of

deferred maintenance did not have a significant correlation
with the assessment of the building by the individual ap ­
praisal indicating the building is either Excellent,
Fair or Poor.

Good,

The individual's rating was an individual

interpretation of what Excellent,
to the individual.

Good,

Fair or Poor meant

There were no directions or conditions

imposed by the survey instrument on what constituted Excel­
lent,

Good,

Fair or Poor.

Building age and the amount of

deferred maintenance did not have a significant correlation.
As buildings became older,
nance

the amount of deferred mainte ­

did not c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y

increase.

The

amount

of

deferred maintenance did not have a significant correspond­
ence to the Replacement Cost Index

(RCI).

The RCI

is the

original cost of the building plus renovations and additions
costs divided by today's replacement value.

The RCI does

not take into account money spent on a continuous basis for

48

upkeep and maintenance but only major renovation and addi­
tions.

As the amount of deferred maintenance increased the

RCI did not decrease in a significant manner.
Also

only eighty

(80)

buildings

reported

information

that is necessary to calculate the Replacement Cost Index
(RCI).

An

inquiry were made of a sample of respondents as

to why such figures as the original cost of the building was
not reported.

It was learned that the research into Board

minutes, which are the official records of the district was
far too time consuming and costly to provide information to
a scholarly study.

In one case it was said that the offi­

cial Board minutes had been lost or destroyed by a previous
superintendent.
trary to law.

The records did not exist;
The Replacement Cost Index

which is con­

(RCI)

v a l u a b l e tool to use in comparing buildings,

could be a
but without

adequate data is of limited value.
The relationship of each b u i l d i n g 1s deferred ma inte­
nance and the variables of each sub-class of deferred main­
tenance of roofing,

heating,

building structure. technology

ne e d s . grounds and other.
HO3

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships betw ee n the amount of deferred m a i n t e n a n c e and the
categories
systems,

of d e f e r r e d m a i n t e n a n c e

building structure,

of

roofing,

technology needs,

heating

grounds,

and

other needs.
The

Pearson

P roduct-Moment

C or rel at ion A na lys is was

used to test the strength and direction of the r e l a t i o n ­
ships.

Correlations for each of the independent variables

49

(roofing,

heating,

bu il d i n g structure,

te c h n o l o g y needs,

grounds and other needs) and the dependent variable of total
building deferred maintenance are summarized in Table 4-3.
At the 0.05 level of significance all variables were found
to have a statistically significant relationship.

A signif­

icant correlation was found between the individual building
deferred maintenance and each sub-class of deferred mainte­
nance.

Each correlation was a positive relationship varying

between a low of .4887 and a high of .8375.
was

found

to be b e t w e e n

a perfect

The probability

correlation

of

.000

and .004.
There was a significant correlation found between each
su b- category of roofing,

heating,

structure,

technology,

grounds and other to the total building deferred maintenance
needs.
of this

The building deferred maintenance needs are made up
sub-categories;

it ther efo re

should

there would be a significant mathematical

follow

correlation b e ­

tween the parts and the whole.

Table 4-3
Statistical Correlation of Null Hypothesis 3
Deferred Maintenance
Correlation
Roofing
Heating
Structure
Technology
Grounds
Other

P=
.004
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

.4887
.6333
.8375
.5601
.6640
.6621

50

that

Table 4-4 is a summary of the total amounts,

number of

buildings reporting deferred maintenance in each category and
the mean deferred maintenance in each category.

Table 4-4
Summary of Deferred Maintenance by Building
Total

NumberMean

Roofing

$2,480,500

33

$75,176

Heating

$3,573,000

32

$111,656

Structure

$6,811,500

29

$234,879

Technology

$7,093,000

56

$126,661

Grounds

$4,073,000

25

$162,920

Other

$5,991,605

33

$181,564

Total

$68,076,851

120

$567,307

The table above shows the greatest number of schools
(56)

d e f e r r e d m ain te n a n c e

needs.

Th e h i g h e s t

in the

average

cat egory

a m o u n t was

of t ech nology

in the d e f e r r e d

category of structural needs, the average being $234,879 per
building.
category.

Not

all

surveys were

compl ete d

for each

sub­

Some listed only a total amount without separat­

ing the amount needed by category.
fe r r e d m a i n t e n a n c e w as

ove r h a l f

The average total d e ­
a million

dollars

per

building.
The survey did not distinguish between critical d e ­
ferred maintenance needs such as a structural defect, Ameri­
cans Disabilities Act
ca pped

a c c e s sib le

(ADA)

requirements,

elevators

physically handi­

or tech nol og y

51

needs

such

as

wiring the building for computer networks.

It should also

be noted that of the one hundred seventy-three
ings included in the survey fifty-three
six-tenths percent

(30.6%)

(53)

(173) build­

or thirty and

did not report any deferred main

tenance needs.
The relationship of the Total Budget and the variables
of the M a i n t en an ce

and Opera tio n

Budget

and

the

Capital

Outlay portion of the Maintenance and Operation Budget.
HO4

There are no statistically significant relation­

ships between the total district budget and the maintenance
and operation budget or the capital

outlay portion of the

maintenance and operation budget.
The

Pearson

P roduct-Moment

C o r r e la tio n An aly si s was

used to test the strength and d i r ec tio n of the r e l a t i o n ­
ships.

Correlation for each of the

independent variables

(maintenance and operation budget and capital outlay of the
maintenance and operation budget)

and the dependent variable

of total budget are summarized in Table 4-5.
level

of

significance

both v a r iab le s

At the 0.05

of M a i n t e n a n c e

and

Operation Budget and the Capital Outlay of the Maintenance
and O pe ra tio n

Budget were

found

to have

a s t a t i st ica lly

significant relationship to the total budget.

Each correla­

tion was found to have a positive relationship; that is the
variable increased as the dependent variable increased.
Maintenance and Operation budget correlation was

The

.5495 and

the Capital Outlay of the Maintenance and Operation Budget
had a high correlation of .9150 to the dependent variable of

52

Total Budget.

The probabilities of .001 for the Maintenance

and Operation budget and .000 for the Capital Outlay portion
of the Maintenance and Operation Budget are very high.

Table 4-5
Statistical Correlation of Null Hypothesis 4
Correlation

C a p . Out
of M&O

M&O
Budget

Total Budget
P=

9150
. 000

5495
.001

The total district budget did have a significant corre­
lation with the total Maintenance and Operation Budget and
w i t h the
Operation

Capital

Outlay

portion

of the M a i n t e n a n c e

Budget

of the

distr ict .

The

Maintenance

and
and

Operation Budget and Capital Outlay portion of the M ai nt e­
nance and Operation Budget are subparts of the Total Budget.
There was a significant mathematical
the whole and the parts.
maintenance

and

correspondence between

As the total budget increased, the

operation

budget

and

capital

outlay

of

maintenance and operation did increase in correlation with
the total budget of a district.

FINDINGS RELATED TO SUMMARIZED DATA
The respondents were asked to list any buildings that
will not be used five
of the survey.

(5) and ten

(10) years from the date

There were no buildings listed that would not

53

be used five

(5) years from the date of the survey and one

(1) building that would not be used ten

(10) years from the

date of the survey.

The survey asked the respondents to

answer the questions,

"Has the district made major renova­

tions without

a bo n d

issue?"

and

"Approximate

renovations during the past ten years?".

All

costs

of

respondents

answered "yes" or "no" to the first question.

Those that

responded in the affirmative indicated an amount that reno­
vation had cost without a bond issue in the past ten
years.
percent
out

Twenty-two
(38.6%)

a bond

(22)

or t h i r t y - e i g h t

and

(10)

six-tenths

of the districts have had renovations with­

issue.

The

amounts

ranged

$30,000 w i t h

from

the

a high

average

of

$33,200,000

to a low of

being

$2,223,750.

This was money from the general fund budget and

not from a debt retirement fund.
The current debt levy of the districts

ranged

high of nine (9) mills to a low of zero (0) mills.

from a

The mean

for all districts surveyed was one and ninety-three hundreds
(1.93) mills.

The table below shows the

millage rates for

each di str ict with the total amount of debt and an added
calculation of debt per pupil.

54

Table 4 - 6
SUMMARY OF BUILDING DEBT BY DISTRICT
DISTRICT
ID.

DEBT
LEVY

DEBT
REMAINING

DEBT
PER PUPIL

(M IL L IO N S )

CASEVILE
EPB
HARBOR BEACH
NORTH HURON
OWENDALE
PORT HOPE
UBLY
EAST LANSING
LANSING
DANSVILLE
HASLETT
HOLT
LESLIE
MASON
STOCKBRIDGE
WAVERLY
WEBBERVILLE
WILLIAMSTON
GERRISH HIGGNS
HOUGHTON LAKE
BYRON
LAINGSBURG
NEW LOTHROP
PERRY
MONROE
SUMMERFIELD
WHITFORD
NICE
GWINN
NEGAUNEE
BOYNE CITY
BOYNE FALLS
COPPERSVILLE
ZEELAND

102
103
104
105
106
107
108
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
209
210
211
212
301
302
401
403
404
405
501
508
509
601
602
603
701
702
805
809

0.00071
0
1.06
9
4.12
0
4
3.89
1.91
1 .6

7.63
7.1
4.4
1.8
2.3
0
7.45
5.3
0
2.5
2.568
7.45
7.4
4.5
0
3.2
1.1
2.6
0
5.25
1.7
3
4.72
2.65

55

0.05
0.00
0.75
0.01
1.30
0.00
0.40
63.03
48.29
0.63
5.40
43.10
1.75
2.63
2.38
0.00
6.70
6.70
0.00
1.65
1.41
7.35
4.50
2.25
0.00
1.50
0.38
2.00
0.00
6.27
1.46
0.14
14.15
9.50

$183
$0
$803
$16
$3,988
$0
$440
$15,744
$2,161
$708
$2,033
$8,847
$1,111
$767
$1,312
$0
$7,523
$4,007
$0
$844
$1,211
$6,528
$4,929
$1,153
$0
$1,676
$501
$1,176
$0
$3,713
$1,029
$408
$5,380
$2,787

The debt per pupil shows a high of $15,744 and a low of
zero dollars.

The m ea n debt per pupil was

corresponding mean debt rate
five h un dreds

(3.25)

thirty-four million

in 199 3 of three and twenty-

mills.

Total

($234,000,000)

million nine hundred thousand
the districts surveyed.

$2,357 with a

debt was

two hundred

with an average of six

($6,900,000)

per district,

of

There is a great amount of var ia­

tion among the individual districts.

Previously,

it was

shown in the analysis of HOI that the State Equalized Value
per pupil did not have a significant mathematical correla­
tion with the amount of debt and thus it could be concluded
that

the w e a l t h

of a d i s t r i c t

as m e a s u r e d

by the

State

Equalized Value per pupil does not have a significant corre­
lation with the amount of outstanding debt per pupi l.
It was

found through the survey that

sixty-one

(61)

portable units are currently being used in conjunction with
the one hundred seventy-three

(173)

(25)

districts re sp onding to the

of the t hir ty - f o u r

(34)

survey reported using portables.
four percent

(74%)

buildings.

Twenty-five

This accounts for seventy-

of the districts surveyed using portable

structures as adjuncts to the buildings.
The one hundred seventy-three

(173)

buildings surveyed

reported that eighty-seven (87) of the buildings were acces­
sible to the physically handicapped and that eighty-six (86)
we r e

not

accessible

to

the ph ysi ca lly

handicapped.

The

survey instrument did not define access to the physically
handicapped nor was there any information included delineat­

56

ing the recent requirements of the American's with Disabili­
ties Act (ADA) regulations.

FINDINGS RELATED TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS
One of the purposes of this study was to determine if
school districts were deferring maintenance needs,
m a i n t e n a n c e needs were deferred,

and if

the amount per building

deferred and in which general category.
The res pon den t

school

d istricts

re po rte d an average

deferred maintenance of $562,619 per building.
deferred maintenance was distributed
heating system needs,

structural

grounds and other needs.

among

needs,

The total

roofing needs,

technology needs,

Table 4-7 is a numerical descrip­

tion of the findings related to building deferred needs.
Of

the

buildings,

one

hundred

seventy-three

forty-two percent

the physically handicapped.
in thirty-three
$75,167.
thirty-two
$111,656.
nine

(33)

(42%)

(173)

respondent

were not accessible to

Deferred roof repair was needed

of the buildings at an average cost of

D eferred heat in g system needs were reported
(32)

of the b u i l d i n g s

at

an

average

cost

in
of

Deferred structural repair was needed in twenty-

(29) of the buildings at an average cost of $234,879.

Deferred technology needs
of the build ing s

were reported in fifty-six

at an average

deferred needs were

reported

cost

of

$126,661.

in t h i r t y - t w o

(32)

(56)
Other

of the

buildings at an average cost of $187,238.
The total number of buildings with some deferred needs
was one hundred twenty-one

(121)

57

or seventy-seven percent

(77%)

of those responding to the survey.

The average cost

of deferred needs was $562,619 per building.

The individual

categories do not add up to the total as some buildings had
deferred needs in more than one category and some respond­
ents gav e

only a total

amount

of def err ed

needs

w ithout

specifying any categories.
The

deferred

twenty-one

(121)

maintenance

ne eds

of

t he

one

hundred

buildings represents needs for fifty-eight

t h o u s a n d four hundr ed

four

(58,404)

maintenance of $9.63 per student.

58

students or deferred

TABLE 4 - 7
'Findings Related to Deferred Maintenance
Number of Respondent Buildings
Percent not Accessible to Phy. Handicapped
Percent of Bldg. with Deferred Maintaince Needs

173
42%
77%

Number of Buildings with Deferred Roofing Needs
Total Amount of Deferred Roofing Needs
Average per building

33
$2,480,500
$75,167

Number of Buildings with Deferred Heating Sys Needs
Total Amount of Deferred Heating System Needs
Average per building

32
$3,573,000
$111,656

Number of Bldg. with Deferred Structural Sys. Needs
Total Amount of Deferred Structural Needs
Average per building

29
$6,811,500
$234,879

Number of Bldg. with Deferred Technology Needs
Total Amount of Deferred Technology Needs
Average per building

56
$7,093,000
$126,661

Number of Bldg. with Other Deferred Needs
Total Amount of Other Deferred Needs
Average per building

32
$5,991,605
$187,238

Number of Bldg. with Deferred Needs
Total Amount of Deferred Needs
Average per building

121
$68,076,851
$562,619

59

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter V is organized in three sections.
ground and purpose of the study,
the

statistical

section.
section.

methodology

The back­

the literature review,

are

s um marized

in the

and

first

The principle findings are presented in the second
The major

c onclusions

and

recomme nd ati on s

for

further study are presented in the third and final section.

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
The pur pos e of this

study was to identify the ages,

condition and deferred needs of public school buildings in
the State of Michigan.

Analyses were made to determine if

the condition of the school buildings could be correlated
with

the w e a l t h

Equalized Value

of a d i s t r i c t

as m e a s u r e d by the State

(SEV) per pupil.

Statistical analysis were

made to test correlation of the deferred maintenance against
the age of buildings,

respondents a sse ssment and the R e ­

placement

(RCI)

C ost

Index

of

individual

bui ldings.

A

statistical analysis was made to test the correlation of the
individual categories of deferred maintenance with the total
amount of deferred maintenance in each building.

The total

district budget and the maintenance and operation budgets
and the capital outlay budget of maintenance and operation
were s t a t ist ica ll y analyzed to deter mi ne

if correlations

existed between the amounts budgeted.
A review of educational literature indicated a growing

60

national concern for the condition of school facilities.

One

of t he m o s t

the

serious

problems,

nationally,

has

be e n

amount of deferre d m a i n t e nan ce in school districts.
states'

responses

have

b ee n

increased

funding capital outlay and debt service.
this

increased

st ate

condition of school

participation

participation

in

The inadequacy of

is r e f l e c t e d

facilities nationwide.

renovation and new buildings

The

in the

The costs

for

remain the responsibility of

the local district in the State of Michigan; the State does
not have any mechanisms in place to assist local districts
with the funding of capital improvements.
The current finance formula for the funding of educa­
tion in Michigan has been eradicated by the legislature and
governor.
remains
s c h ool

The p rop er ty tax base for school

in effect.
operating

The

same

expenses

school building projects
where in the nation,

are

inequities

in

perpetuated

co nst ruction
financing
in

of

financing

in the State of Michigan.

Else­

challenges are being made in courts on

the equity of financing school buildings with local property
taxes.
Michigan public schools have major needs for renovation
and replacement of buildings to make them safe and accessi­
ble to all populations.
maintenance

is

a major

It has been noted that deferred
potential

expenditure

as

school

administrators and boards of education have chosen to fund
daily

operations

instead

of u p k e e p

of b u i l di ngs .

Wit h

operating funds derived mainly from local property taxes the

61

amount of deferred maintenance has accelerated the problems
as reflected in the amount of deferred maintenance.

Michi­

gan's cu rre nt me thod of funding bu il d i n g pr oje ct s

solely

from local property taxes may perpetuate this inequity.
If the

reader

examines

the

data

from

an

viewpoint the data may be subject to questions.
of the data,

they are reported

as received

empirical
In defense

from a great

variety of school officials filling out the survey.

In the

first chap te r of this paper it was reported that a major
limitation of the study was,

"data collected were based on

the k n ow led ge and percep ti ons of individual

o fficials

in

each school district and on estimates made by those offi­
cials for conditions existing at the point in time when they
completed the questionnaire."
The personal experiences and observations of the reader
m a y be

s t r o n g e r tha n

the data

pre sen te d.

It is not

an

aberration to believe the data should show that as the SEV
per pupil increases the age of school buildings and deferred
maintenance would be a negative correlation or that mainte­
nance and operation budgets would increase as the SEV per
pupil increases.
As a generalization this writer believes the question­
naire was actually completed and data gathered by individu­
als with a great diversity of backgrounds and job descrip­
tions.

Perhaps,

because

it was addressed to the Superin­

tendent, the superintendent's name was placed in the block
as the

contact person and as a return address,

despite the

fact that the data collection and reporting was delegated.

62

In some cases the questionnaire was completed by the dis­
trict Superintendent,

or the A s sis tan t Su pe r i n t e n d e n t

in

charge of the physical plant, while in other instances the
data we r e g a t h e r e d and com piled by a head c u s to dia n or a
building principal.

It becomes easy to understand that the

level of understanding of a building's needs would be con­
strued v e r y differently,

depen din g on the b a c k g r o u n d and

knowledge of the individual.

This factor,

indeed may have

skewed the data, and thus is a limitation of the study.

METHODOLOGY
As a result of the review of literature the following
questions were asked:
1.

Are there statistically significant relationships

between the condition of school buildings as measured by the
State Equalized Value

(SEV) and the following factors:

age

of the building, maintenance and operation budget per pupil,
estimated cost of deferred maintenance projects per pupil,
amount of remaining debt of the district and amount of debt
levy?
2.

Are there statistically significant relationships

between the amount of deferred maintenance and respondents
as s e s s m e n t of the cond iti on of the buildings,

age of the

buildings and Replacement Cost Index?
3.

Are there statistically significant relationships

between the amount of deferred maintenance and the catego­
ries of deferred maintenance

of roofing,

63

heating systems,

building

st ruc tur e,

technology

nee ds

grounds

and

ot h e r

deferred needs?
4.

Are there statistically significant relationships

between the total district budget and the maintenance

and

operation budget or the capital outlay portion of the main­
tenance and operation budget?
Four null hy p o t h e s i s were

c o ns tru ct ed to test these

questions and to indicate the relationships and differences
which might

exist

variable factors.

between

the

dependent

f a ct or

and

the

The statistical procedures used to test

these hypotheses was the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
analysis.

The

statistical

Package for Social Studies

p r o gra m

(SPSS).

used

was

Statistical

The level of confidence

was set at 0.05.
Q u es t i o n n a i r e s were

sent to

fifty-seven

(57)

school

districts distributed by a wide geographical area and repre­
senting a wide disparity of SEV per pupil.
included thirty-four
seventy-three

The responses

(34) school districts and one hundred

(173) school buildings.

The first page of the

two page questionnaire asked for responses and data about
the district.

The second page was used to gather data on

individual buildings.

Data from the two pages of the ques­

tionnaire were compiled and analyzed.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Relationship of SEV per pupil and the factors of age of
b u i l dings. maintenance

and

operation

64

budget

per

pupil.

di strict d ef e r r e d ma i n t e n a n c e costs per p u p i l , amount of
remaining debt of the district and amount of debt levy were
correlated for statistical significance.
The

findings

stat i s t i c a l l y

of this s t u d y

signifi ca nt

indicated

r el ati on shi ps

b e t w een

pupil and the factors of age of buildings,
operation budget per pupil,
nance costs per pupil.

th e r e w e r e no
SEV

per

maintenance and

and district deferred mainte ­

In summary,

the SEV per pupil which

is a standard measure of the wealth of a district did not
indicate the age of buildings,
bu dg et per pupil,
costs per pupil

maintenance

and operation

nor were d is trict def er red m aintenance

statistically different between districts

with varying amounts of SEV behind each pupil.

The wealth

of a district did not exhibit a relationship to the varia­
bles enumerated above.
The SEV per pupil did show a statistically significant
relationship with the amount of debt levy of the district.
The relationship was an inverse relationship; as the SEV per
pupil increased the debt levy decreased.

The inverse rela­

tionship showed that the greater the SEV per pupil the less
tax n e e d e d

to be

levied

to p ay

for the

construction

of

school buildings.
Relationship of the amount of deferred maintenance and
the variables of respondents assessment of the condition of
the b u i l d i n g s . age of buildings and Replacement Cost Index

(R C I )

.

Th e

finding

of t hi s

stu dy

indicated

there

wer e

no

statistically significant relationships between the amount

65

of def erred m a i n t en anc e and the variables of respondents
assessment of the condition of the buildings,
ings and Rep la c e m e n t

Cost

Index

( RCI ).

age of build­

In summary,

the

deferred maintenance per building as reported in the survey
did not have a direct relationship with respondents assess­
ment of the condition of the buildings, age of buildings nor
the Replacement Cost Index (RCI).
Relationships of each b u i l d i n g 1s deferred maintenance
needs and the variables of each sub-class of deferred main­
tenance of roofing. heating. building structure. technology
needs.

grounds

and

other

deferred

needs.

The finding of this study indicated there were statis­
tic all y si gnificant r el ationships between each buildings
deferred maintenance needs and the variables of each sub­
class of deferred maintenance of roofing,
structure,
needs.

tec hnology

needs,

grounds

heating,

and

other

building
deferred

In summary as each of the sub categories increased

the total amount of deferred maintenance increased.
The data also showed a significant amount of deferred
maintenance needs to be prevalent in the districts surveyed.
The average amount of deferred maintenance needs per build­
ing,
need,

of those respondents listing the deferred maintenance
was over half a million dollars.
Relationships of the total budget and the variables of

Ma i n t e n a n c e
portion
The

of

and Opera ti on
the

budget

Maintenance

f i n d i n g s of t hi s study

66

and

and

the

Capital

Operation

Outlay

Budget.

indicated a very

st rong

relationship between the Total Budget and the variables of
Maintenance

and

Opera ti on

Budget

and

the

Capital

Outlay

portion of the Maintenance and Operation budget.
mary,

as the Total

Budget

increased

In sum­

the M a i n t e n a n c e

and

Operation Budget and Capital Outlay of the Maintenance and
Operation Budget also increased.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY UTILIZING SUMMARIZED DATA
The findings of the study reported that the respondents
indicated only one building would not be used ten (10) years
from the date of the survey.
eight percent

(38%)

The study disclosed thirty-

of the districts had used general fund

monies to make major renovations on the buildings.
The debt of districts, per pupil,

ranged from a low of

zero dollars to a high of $15,744 per pupil.
debt levy was nine (9) mills.
the

districts

surveyed

their daily operation.
percent

(42%)

are

The highest

Seventy-four percent
using

p ortable

(74%) of

cla ssrooms

in

The respondents reported forty-two

of their buildings are not accessible to the

physically handicapped.

The average deferred maintenance

needs of those buildings reporting deferred maintenance was
$562,919 per building.

CONCLUSIONS
Evidence exists to suggest that

school buildings

are

de te r i o r a t i n g rapidly and that m a int en anc e needs are in­
creasing concomitantly
Devin,

1985).

(AASA,

1983;

Leggett et al.,

1983;

Where the average age of buildings exceeds

67

forty

(40) years,

there is clear indication that the costs

of modernization, replacement, and maintenance will continue
to increase from already high levels
son & Stewart,

1988) .

(Honeyman, Wood, Thomp­

The average age of Michigan public

school buildings reported in the survey is forty-one
years,

(41)

and the condition of the buildings in some cases can

be described as barely adequate.

If parents begin to ques­

tion the safety and well-being of the children they send off
to school,

schools would have to begin massive renovation

and replacement programs preceded by bond issues costing the
taxpayer added monies.
Perhaps the most serious indicator resulting from this
study was the level of deferred maintenance in each build­
ing.

These maintenance projects have been deferred

variety of reasons.
quate

funding

for

for a

The most prevalent is a lack of ade­
operation

of the

existing

curriculum.

When services and programs that directly serve students are
reduced or eliminated, maintenance needs such as a re-roofing
program are deferred until a major problem erupts.
instance of roofing,
of mind."

it is often said,

In the

"out of sight - out

This applies until the leaks in the roof begin to

disrupt the delivery of educational services.
The wealth of a school district as measured by the SEV
per pupil did not exhibit a statistically significant rela­
ti on shi p

to bu ilding

conditions.

The variety

and

back­

grounds of individuals completing the survey was extremely
diverse.

The respondents ranged from the superintendent of

68

the

district

to an e n g i n e e r

in c h a r g e

of b u i l d i n g s

grounds, or in some cases a head custodian.

and

This variety is

representative of how school districts are maintained and of
the people responsible for the health and safety of school
children.
If the

legislature

is

examining

a major

reform

of

school districts, the physical condition of buildings should
be included in the reforms.
ch il d r e n

should become

Health and safety of school

a major

factor

in the

equalization of funding for the maintenance,

debates

of

operation and

renovation of school districts along with the often mi s u n ­
de rs t o o d

areas

of curriculum,

course

offerings

and

test

results of the 524 K-12 districts in Michigan.
Bonding ability can be related to property wealth or
the SEV per pupil.

Districts with a low SEV per pupil, that

relies heavily on general operating funds for renovation and
remolding,

are at a disadvantage to those districts with a

h igh SEV per pupil v a l ua tio n to secure funds
issue.

from a bond

Generally, property rich school districts are better

able to generate

funds through a bonding proposal because

the tax burden is inversely related to the SEV of the d i s ­
trict.

The district with a low SEV per pupil would have to

pass a bond issue with a debt levy much higher to accomplish
the

s ame

little

results.

bon din g

P r o p e r t y poo r

ca pacity

school

and therefore

districts

look to

state

o p e rat io n funds for funding many of their capital
projects.

h av e
aid

outlay

Voter defeat of operational millages and of bond

issues in recent years has discouraged school administrators

69

and boards of education from seeking funds for major renova­
tions and maintenance projects.

The result is a continued

deterioration of the condition of school buildings through­
out the state.
The

age

and

condition

of

s ch ool

buildings

and

the

reported levels of deferred maintenance are serious problems
facing Michigan school districts.

The way in which funds

are provided for schools is no longer adequate for districts
to maintain the buildings
tions,
health,

required courses,

for enrollment,

government mandates,

safety and accessibility.

for funding capital

special popula­
and pupil's

The available mechanism

outlay projects place the b urden and

responsibility entirely on the local taxpayer.

Both proper­

ty-wealthy and property-poor school districts are struggling
with

the

available

defeat bond issues,
Hea dle e

overrides

capital

outlay mechanisms

as v o t e r s

operation budget millage proposals and
at an

increasing

rate

each year.

The

burden of complying with state and federal requirements for
curriculum,

course offerings,

well as asbestos abatement,
de tec tio n

and

a host

of

safety and accessibility as

fire alarm retrofit,

other

requirements,

radon gas

have

caused

districts to use current operating funds for these require­
ments; thereby increasing the level of deferred maintenance
of projects that should be considered routine and essential
to the students well-being and comfort.
districts

need to

evaluate

All Michigan school

the buildings

health, safety and learning of students.

70

effects

on the

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Fr o m

the p r i n c i p a l

findings

of

th i s

conclusions drawn from those findings,

st u d y

and

the

the following recom­

mendations for further research are proposed
For districts

in this

study,

an

inverse

relationship

was found between the amount of debt levy and the wealth of
a school district as m e a s u r e d by SEV p er pupil.

Further

research is advised to determine an appropriate amount of
millaqe that local taxpayers can bear to assure the safety
and welfare of all Michigan school children regardless
the wealth of the d i s t r i c t .

of

The study should address the

property categories of residential,

commercial,

industrial

and agricultural.
An analysis of maintenance needs should be commissioned
and

funded by the

state

legislature

to dete rmi ne

precise and standardized level of need
As

an example,

it wo uld be

a dvisable

a more

in each b u i l d i n g .
to

require

precise

measurements of everything from windows in need of caulking
and tuck-pointing of brick to the age of boilers and heating
systems.
with

The study instrument obviously would be long but

the a s s i s t a n c e

of c o m p u t e r

programs

such

items

as

window caulking could be elevated to a standardized cost and
heat

loss

c o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d

on the

square

f o o t age

of

windows verse brick wall.
One of the m os t s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s

described

in this

study involved the levels of deferred maintenance in Michi­
gan public schools.

Deferred ma i n t e n a n c e

71

is a budg eta ry

procedure practiced
wealth

in school districts

of the distr ict .

The

regardless of the

legislature

and

executive

branches of Michigan government must investigate the methods
needed

to

a d e q ua tel y ma in tai n

and

renovate

buil din gs

to

assure the accessibility, health and safety of every student
while
th a t

in the school b u i l d i n g .
a s t u d y be m a d e

of e v e r y

It is further recommended
new p i e c e

of

legislation

pe r t a i n i n g to school dist ric ts to assess the cost of the
legislation and effects on building utilization.
The probl ems of d efe rr ed m a i n t e nan ce
million dollars per building,

of over half a

forty-two percent

(42%) of the

buildings not being accessible to the physically handicapped
and the average age of buildings being over forty-one years
old cannot be ignored.

The health and safety of our chil­

dren is at risk in some buildings.

In many buildings the

school does not meet the requirements to be a good learning
environment.
Data from every public

school building are needed to

determine exact needs in the state's schools.

The deferred

needs dep ic ted in this paper needs further refinement to
determine p r i o r i t i e s .

There is a major difference between

the deferred needs of technology,

such as installation of a

computer network, when compared with a deferred structural
need of det er i o r a t i n g bri ck and mortar

or a leaky

roof.

Priorities of deferred maintenance needs to be assigned to
determine the needs as immediate, such as a roof that leaks,
or a def e r r e d sche du led maintenance,

72

such as a roof that

needs to be replaced every twenty years.
When data are compiled the legislature should look at
the needs from the perspective of,
and h e a lt hy

envir onm en t

for

"Are we providing a safe

school

children?"

and

"What

implications will meeting these needs have on the tax struc­
ture of the state?"

As reported in the body of the study a

low SEV per pupil district must tax the publ ic much more
than a high SEV per pupil district for the same building or
renovation project.

At the time of this writing the legis­

lature has recognized the need and desire to equalize oper­
ating funds between rich
SEV per pupil) districts.

(high SEV per pupil)

(low

It is recommended the legislature

study methods of equalizing the revenue
renovations.

and poor

for buildings and

Legislative action is needed to fund buildings

and renovations.

Michigan being one of fifteen states that

does not assist local districts in funding school buildings
and renovations is not an acceptable arrangement.

Equaliz­

ing revenue with state funds is only one method of providing
funds to upgrade the facilities.
another method

to explore.

The

A statewide bond would be
state

through

a public

referendum passed a statewide bond issue to build prisons in
the early 1980s.

Other statewide bonds were passed in the

1980s to clean up toxic waste and to build
state parks.

and

renovate

Should school buildings not be considered as

important as prisons and other needs?

Are children safe in

our present school buildings?
In summary,

a statewide study to determine the safety

of and adequacy of buildings as learning environments needs

73

to be commissioned by the legislature.

The legislature then

needs to debate the various tax alternatives to address the
p r oblems.

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
The

research

process

used

in thi s

st u d y

w as

partially on the perceptions of the respondents.

based

Much of

the information produced by this study was specific to the
p o int in time at whic h

it was collected and thus may not

truly reflect all the capital projects that were underway at
the time.

Nonetheless,

the questions asked to fulfill the

purposes of this study have been answered.
the condition of school buildings
mined.

Indications of

in Michigan were deter­

The level of deferred maintenance and its effect on

the current condition
The adequacy,

safety,

of school buildings was determined.
and accessibility of school buildings

in Michigan were described.
has shown there
buildings;

More importantly,

this study

is a p r o b l e m in Mi ch i g a n school

thus there are serious

health and safety of students.

implications

district
about the

There is a deferred mainte­

nance backlog that is seriously endangering the condition of
school buildings.

The cause of this backlog can be directly

attributed to the fact that the State of Michigan fails to
p r o v id e any aid or support for local school distr ict s to
maintain,
ties.

improve,

expand and repair their school

facili­

The condition of school buildings will continue to

deteriorate unless action is taken to improve the

74

funding

mechanism to local school districts.

75

APPENDIX A
MICHIGAN COUNTIES SURVEYED

APPENDIX A
MICHIGAN COUNTIES SURVEYED

MICHIGAN
COUNTIES SURVEYED
76

APPENDIX B
ENROLLMENT AND SEV PER PUPIL

BAD AX
CASEVILE
EPB
HARBOR BEACH
NORTH HURON
OWENDALE
PO RT HO PE
UBLY
EAST LANSING
LANSING
DANSVILLE
HASLETT
HOLT
LESLIE
MASON
OKEM OS
STOCKBRIDGE
WAVERLY
WEBBERVILLE
WILLIAMSTON
GERRISH HIGGNS
HOUGHTON LAKE
BYRON
DURAND
LAINGSBURG
NEW LOTHROP
PERRY
CORUNNA
O W O SSO
MONROE
AIRPORT
BEDFORD
DUNDEE
IDA
JE FF E R SO N
MASON CON
SUMMERFIELD
WHITFORD
NICE
GWINN
NEGAUNEE
REPUBLIC MICH
MARQUETTE
ISHPEMING
CHARLEVOIX CO
BOYNE CITY
BOYNE FALLS
CHARLEVOIX
EAST JORDAN
GRAND HAVEN
HOLLAND
ALLENDALE
W EST OTTAWA
COPPERSVILLE
JEN ISO N
HUDSONVILLE
SPRING LAKE
ZEELAND

A P P E N D IX B
E N R O L L M E N T AND S E V P E R PU P IL
ENROLLMENT
ID NUMBER

SEV/PUPIL

1509
277
1335
934
916
302
136
910
4003
2 2349
890
2656
4871
1575
3423
4031
1846
3300
890
1672
1808
1990
1168
2406
1126
913
934
2142
2164
7246
2575
4778
1468
1608
2544
2770
895
749
1701
2979
1690
213
5018
1411
1362
1414
343
1305
1668
5666
5405
1492
5116
2630
2648
4930
3119
3409

$70 ,3 8 7
$282,907
$129,134
$121,461
$121,044
$103,048
$193,875
$78 ,0 2 2
$141,469
$69 ,4 0 8
$64 ,0 4 5
$76 ,3 6 8
$58,189
$44 ,7 0 0
$70 ,6 4 0
$131,617
$63 ,5 3 5
$166,667
$48 ,3 1 5
$79,551
$150,358
$137,521
$60,188
$47,164
$59,210
$54,765
$52,487
$42,544
$57,015
$141,954
$94,962
$69,460
$89,207
$70,791
$406,261
$68,401
$69,455
$108,566
$46,914
$28,070
$44,778
$135,593
$76 ,8 3 7
$35,246
$129,190
$127,528
$94 ,1 6 9
$205,867
$92,968
$156,413
$121,844
$41,536
$121,114
$60,684
$57 ,3 1 2
$74 ,4 7 5
$100,902
$102,728

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
301
302
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
601
602
603
604
605
606
700
701
702
703
704
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809

77

APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE

N A M E ___________________________________
D IST R IC T ____________________________

QUESTIONNAIRE
Data for 1992-93
1. E n ro llm e n t___________
2. SEV____________________
3. Total G eneral Fund Budget____________________
4. Total M aintenance B u d g et____________________
5. Total Capital Outlay Budget for M aintenance and O peration_______________
6. H as the district m ade m ajor renovations without a bond issu e?_____________
7. A pproxim ate cost of renovations during the past ten years?

________________

8. H as the district deferred m aintenance/capital outlay/ renovation due to lack of funds?
YES
NO
8a. Estim ated cost of deferred pro jects?________________
9. D ebt R etirem ent: (June 30,1992)
Mills Levied

Last year o f the levy D ebt Remaining

10. List any buildings that will n o i be used 5 years from t&'day.

11. List any buildings that will not be used 10 years from today.
•

78

„ ,

Send survey results to:

N A M E ________________
D IS T R IC T _____________

Individual B uilding D a ta

building

N A M E ________________

1. Original Year Building Constructed?___________

2. Original Cost of Building?_______________
3. Approximate cost of renovations and additions since building was constructed?________
4. Estimated cost of current replacement value for this building?_________________
5. Grade levels that use the building?______________
7. Building Enrollment?______________
8. Number of temporary structures (portables) used in conjunction with the building?

9. Is the building accessible to physically handicapped? YES NO

10. Has the district deferred maintenance/capital outlay/ renovation for this building due to
lack of funds?
YES
NO
11. (If applicable) Briefly describe the needed renovations or capitol outlay projects?
Estimated Costs
Roofing

______________

Heating System

______________

Building Structure

______________

Technology Needs___________________________________________________ ______________
Grounds____________________________________________________________ ______________
Other(describe)______________________________________________________ ______________

12. Total estimated cost of deferred repairs or renovations?_________
13. Your assessment of the condition of the building: (Circle one)
Excellent

Good

Fair Poor

79

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO RESPONDENTS

Dean Atkins
885 Dakin Road
Dansville, MI 48819

Dear
As a practicing Superintendent at Dansville Schools and as part
of my Doctoral study at Michigan State University, I ask that you
fill out and return the enclosed questionnaire. It is my hope
that data from the enclosed questionnaire can be used to convince
the legislature to assist local districts in equalizing debt
retirement millage.
The district (color) portion of the ques­
tionnaire will take less than 10 minutes to complete.
Each
building level questionnaire (color) will take less than 15
minutes to complete.
I will be able to provide you with a Re­
placement Cost Index for each building; if you desire the results
please check the box at the bottom of the questionnaire.
The purpose of the survey is to assess the need for renovation of
existing schools or the need for construction of new buildings in
K-12 school districts across the State.
I expect to gather
information on building infrastructure and make recommendations
to the legislature and educational groups for possible state wide
bond issues or some method for state assistance to help pay debt
retirement.
The survey, of course, is completely voluntarily.
You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and return­
ing this questionnaire.
Only the investigator will see the raw
data, individual buildings will not be identified in compiling
the data. The person filling out the survey is guaranteed.com­
plete anonymity.
If you have questions or concerns please con­
tact me at (517) 623-6129(w) or 623-6322.
Enclosed please find one copy of the district survey and copies
for each building of the building level survey.
Feel free to
copy the questionnaire if I have not included enough forms.
In advance, thank you for you assistance and time in completing
the questionnaire.
Sincerely,

80

APPENDIX E
DISTRICT DATA

SCHO O L NAME

ID

DIST
SEV
ENROLL

CASEVILE

102

273

1031

1335

102a
EPB

SEV/
PUPIL

TOTAL
BUDGET

MAINT
BUDG

C&O
MO

1000000

$7,800,0001 $28,571
|
$172,400,000 $129,139

$1,400,000

$132,425

$5,637,995

$178,000

$26,000

RENOVAT RENOVAT
WO/BOND PAST 10
COSTS

$6,000 Y

DIST
DEF
MAINT

DEBT
LEVY

DEBT
RETIRE
YEAR

1994

$80,000

$48,000

0.00071

y

$900,000

$710,000

0

$500,000

$345,000

1.06

1997

103a
103b
103c
103d
103e
HARBOR BEACH

104

934

$113,445,000

$121,461

$3,956,000

$286,000

$15,000 Y

105

743

$107,600,000

$144,818

$3,100,000

$1,416,728

$157,634 n

$25,000

9

1997

106

326

$29,700,000

$91,104

$1,500,000

$1,788,103

$198,955 n

$350,000

4.12

2010

107

136

$26,367,000

$193,875

$856,000

$57,923

$14,000 N

$49,000

0

108

910

$71,000,000

$78,022

$3,500,000

$225,000

$20,000 Y

$100,000

$225,000

4

2006

201

4003

$566,300,000

$141,469

$26,879,000

$1,123,325

$150,000 Y

$33,200,000

3.89

2014

1.91

2009

104A
104B
NORTH HURON
105a
OWEN DALE
106a
PORTHOPE
107a
UBLY
108A
EAST LANSING

$0

201A
201B
201C
201D
201E
201F
201G
201H
2011
201J
LANSING

202

22349 $1,551,280,000

$69,412 $128,000,000

202a
202b
202c
202d
202e
202f
202g
202h
202i
1202j
1202k

81

$4,000,000 $1,360,000

y

$8,000,000

$38,899,751

2021
202m
202n
202o
202p
202q
202r
202s
202t
202u
202v
202w
202x
202y
202z
202aa
202ab
202ab
202ac
202ad
202ae
202af
202ag
202ah
202ai
202aj
202ak
202al
202am
202an
202ao
202ap
DANSVILLE

203

890

$57,000,000

$64,045

$4,300,000

$375,547

$2,500 y

204

2656

$202,834,302

$76,368

$12,754,197

$1,253,153

$113,501 Y

205

4871

$283,440,200

$58,189

$22,162,330

$2,000,000

$131,174 N

$300,000

$520,000

1.6

1998

$1,880,000

7.63

2019

$4,640,000

7.1

2021

203a
203b
203c
HASLETT
204A
204B
204C
204D
204E
HOLT
205A
205B

82

$2,500,000

205C
205D
205E
205F
205G
205H
LESLIE

206

1575

$70,401,957

$44,700

$7,013,000

$616,500

207

3423

$241,800,000

$70,640

$17,237,000

$1,953,825

208
209

1810

$120,000,000

$66,298

$8,400,000

$823,000

210

3300

$550,000,000

$166,667

$23,343,078

211

890

$43,000,000

$48,315

212

1672

$133,009,359

301

1804

302

1956

y

$2,000,000

$0

4.4

2004

$490,000 Y

$500,000

$5,303,000

1.8

2003

y

$1,388,000

$1,800,000

2.3

2003

57,622,101

$63,734 Y

52,000,000

$1,233,000

0

$3,968,000

$471,500

$40,000 Y

$3,500,000

$240,000

7.45

2014

$79,551

$8,009,780

$908,421

$10,000 Y

$1,000,000

$1,050,000

5.3

2008

$268,000,000

$148,559

$7,100,000

$423,689

$73,000 N

$0

0

$274,000,000

$140,082

$7,900,000

$783,254

$46,500 N

$0

2.5

$94,000

206a
206b
206c
MASON
207A
207B
207C
207D
207E
207F
OKEMOS
STOCKBRIDGE
209a
209b
209c
209d
209e
WAVERLY

$91,649

210A
210B
210C
21QD
21OE
21 OF
21OG
WEBBERVILLE
211A
211B
WILLIAMSTON
212a
212b
212c
GERRISH HIGGNS
301a
301b
301c
HOUGHTON LAKE
302a

83

302b
302c
302d
302e
BYRON

401

1168

$70,300,000

$60,188

$5,040,000

$594,000

$50,000 N

403

1126

$66,670,642

$59,210

$4,915,169

$516,349

$27,500 Y

404

913

$50,000,000

$54,765

$4,000,000

$364,000

$12,000 N

405

1951

$84,000,000

$43,055

$7,500,000

$725,000

$186,000 Y

501

7246 $1,028,600,000

$141,954

$38,600,000

$4,421,208

$141,000

2.568

2002

$300,000

$480,000

7.45

2023

$125,000

$0

7.4

2027

$0

4.5

2010

401A
401B
401C
LAINGSBURG
403A
403B
403C
NEW LOTHROP
404A
404B
PERRY
405a
405b
405c
405d
MONROE
501a
501b
501c
501 d
501 e
501 f
501 g
501 h
501 i
501 j
501k
5011
501m
SUMMERFIELD

$717,163

y

$2,000,000

0

508

895

$62,162,389

$69,455

$3,694,826

$499,744

$44,632 N

$30,000

$55,000

3.2

2002

509

749

$81,316,084

$108,566

$3,677,404

$509,686

$128,054 Y

$500,000

$1,800,000

1.1

1994

601

1701

$79,800,000

$46,914

$8,500,000

$630,000

$27,000 Y

$700,000

$895,000

2.6

2002

508A
508B
WHITFORD
509A
509B
NICE
601A
601B
601C
601D
601E

I
84

GWINN

602

2979

$83,621,560

$28,070

$13,825,076

$219,090

$150,000 Y

$1,000,000

$1,550,000

0

701

1414

$180,325,014

$127,528

$7,507,609

$138,488

$45,688 N

$500,000

$4,550,000

1.7

1993

702

343

$32,300,000

$94,169

$1,275,000

$104,047

$14,000 Y

$700,000

$0

3

1998

805

2630

$159,600,000

$60,684

$10,000,000

$1,103,760

$10,000 Y

$1,750,000

$0

4.72

2005

809

3409

$350,200,000

$102,728

$15,200,000

$540,000

$92,500 N

$573,000

2.65

2001

602A
602B
602C
602D
602E
602F
BOYNE CITY
701A
701B
701C
BOYNE FALLS
702A
COPPERSVILLE
805A
805B
805C
805D
ZEELAND
809A
809B
809C
809D
809E
809F

85

YEAR
BUILT

ORGINIAL
C O ST

RENOVA
COST

102A

1950

$58,000

$1,000,000

103a
103b
103c
103d
103e

1935
1940
1942
1979
1959

$500,000
$700,000
$700,000
$1,700,000
$1,200,000

$500,000
$300,000
$350,000
$100,000
$200,000

104A
104B

1949
1970

105a

1947

106a

1926

107A

REPUCE
COST

GRADE
LEVELS

NUMBER
STUDENTS

PORTABLE SPHY
HDIC
ASSESS

DEFERRED
MAINT??
ROOF

$3,000,000 K -1 2

287

Y

$4,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,300,000
$6,000,000

K -5
K -5
K -5
6 -8
9 -1 2

280
185
135
340
425

N
N

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

$750,000
$50,000

7 -1 2
K—6

499
434

Y
Y

$350,000

$500,000

$4,500,000 k - 1 2

726

$175,000

$1,500,000

$3,200,000 k -1 2

1925

$250,000

108A

1935

$400,000

201A
201B
201C
201D
201E
201F
201G
201H
2011
201J

1951
1952
1952
1960
1948
1962
1963
1922
1968
1952

$2,500,000
$700,000
$1,200,000
$2,800,000
$1,100,000
$3,200,000
$2,800,000
$4,200,000
$1,300,000
$3,300,000

202a
202b
202c
202d
202e
202f
202g
202h
202i
202j
202k

1913
1965
1964
1955
1957
1958
1950
1954
1957
1953
1961

$3,600,000

$405,000
$387,000
$480,000
$470,000
$380,000
$440,000
$240,000
$354,000
$470,000

$146,000
$880,000
$50,000
$390,000
$512,000
$80,000
$420,000
$245,000

HEAT

$50,000

Y
Y

$15,000

$50,000
$150,000

n

y

25000

302

n

y

$3,000,000 K -1 2

136

N

N

$25,000

$10,000,000 K -1 2

910

N

Y

$50,000

K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
6 -8
6 -8
9 -1 2

312
203
386
417
196
252
187
392
511
1142

Y
1 Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Y
Y
N
N
Y

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5

417
345
298
266
357
317
432
299
377
380
355

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

$3,950,000
$2,300,000
$2,700,000
$2,000,000
$2,300,000
$2,300,000
$3,080,000
$1,900,000
$2,600,000
$5,600,000
$2,200,000

86

TECH

Y
$100,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$150,000

$3,800,000
$1,011,000
$1,900,000
$4,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,965,000
$3,850,000
$7,300,000
$7,444,000
$14,600,000

STRUCT

y

N
y
y

y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y

$20,000
$20,000
$25,000

50000

$50,000
$25,000
$25,000
$20,000
$50,000

$30,000

100000

50000

$6,500
$75,000

$100,000

2021
202m
202n
202o
202p
202q
202r
202s
202t
202u
202v
202w
202x
202y
202z
202aa
202ab
202ab
202ac
202ad
202ae
202af
202ag
202ah
202ai
202aj
202ak
202a!
202am
202an
202ao
202ap

|

1954
1960
1923
1958
1956
1951
1949
1918
1915
1948
1976
1939
1954
1965
1964
1976
1948
1930
1960
1924
1968
1952
1968
1928
1958
1971
1942
1970
1937
1920
1963

203a
203b
203c

1921
1959
1976

204A
204B
204C
204D
204E

1970
1957
1961
1940
1957

205A
205B

1958
1976

$445,000
$471,000
$160,000

$560,000
$500,000
$2,300,000
$20,000
$100,000
$300,000
$400,000
$1,340,000
$130,000

$345,000
$300,000
$93,000
$205,000
$310,000
$200,000
$20,000
$300,000
$110,000
$400,000
$300,000

$780,000
$140,000

$490,000
$530,000
$150,000
$600,000

$340,000
$370,000
$400,000

$4,300,000
$6,100,000
$1,950,000
$4,500,000

$500,000
$2,200,000
$1,500,000
$200,000
$2,500,000
$500,000
$300,000

$2,400,000

$350,000
$1,000,000
$3,222,625
$140,000

$500,000
$350,000

$1,640,000
$1,800,000
$1,340,000
$2,300,000
$2,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,050,000
$1,900,000
$2,200,000
$2,600,000
$5,000,000
$1,700,000
$2,700,000
$2,800,000
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$2,500,000
$1,900,000
$2,900,000
$2,800,000
$2,900,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$19,680,000
$20,000,000
$19,500,000
$9,120,000
$14,200,000
$10,950,000
$10,000,000
$12,400,000

k -5
k -5
6 -1 2
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
k -5
9 -1 2
9 -1 2
9 -1 2
9 -1 2
6 -8
6 -8
6 -8
6 -8

310
278
70
326
363
287
283
293
196
342
617
234
398
459
221
270
350
218
381
289
320
423
385
1614
1628

$2,000,000 6 - 8
$2,100,000 k - 5
$2,700,000 9 - 1 2

220
408
270

$500,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000

$30,000,000
$15,000,000
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$9,000,000

$4,500,000
$2,000,000

$25,000,000 1 0 -1 2
$18,000,000 8 - 9

9 -1 2
6 -8
2 -5
2 -5
K—1

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
V
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
V
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y

n
n
2 y

y
y
y

625
550
400
400
450

Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

915
712

Y
Y

Y
N

1431
1292
1164
1101
1290

87

$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$30,000

$100,000
$150,000

$75,000
$25,000

$25,000
$25,000
$25,000

$50,000
$50,000

$100,000
$200,000

$100,000
$100,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$1,000,000

205C
205D
205E
205F
205G
205H

1914
1952
1949
1968
1952
1952

206a
206b
206c

1963
1952
1871

207A
207B
207C
207D
207E
207F

1964
1952
1964
1950
1960
1968

209a
209b
209c
209d
209e

1955
1929
1973
1954
1912

210A
21 OB
210C
21OD
21OE
21 OF
21OG

$4,000,000

$800,0001
$600,000
$30,000

$1,620,000
$2,500,000
$1,500,000

$10,000,000
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
$308,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,800,000

6 -7
K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5

$4,700,000 8 - 1 2
$3,315,000 K—4
$2,050,000 5 - 7

794
456
514
416
488
477

2 Y
Y
1 N
N
N
N

N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

560
605
381

3 Y
Y
Y

N
N
N

$40,000

$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$2,800,000
$4,000,000
$16,600,000
$12,035,000

K -5
K -5
K -5
K -5
9 -1 2
6 -8

400
410
425
385
1000
780

Y
1 N
1 Y
N
8 Y
1 Y

Y
Y
Y
y

$150,000
$350,000
$600,000

$8,000,000
$11,000,000
$18,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000

1 -4
5 -8
9 -1 2
1 -4
k

365
560
510
220
175

y
y
y
y
y

y
y
y
y
y

1962
1967
1966
1959
1963
1968
1963

$100,000
$70,000
$100,000
$60,000
$150,000
$800,000
$500,000

$2,855,000
$2,090,000
$2,800,000
$1,900,000
$7,900,000
$10,000,000
$15,300,000

K -4
K -4
K -4
K -4
5 -7
7 -8
9 -1 2

345
341
332
244
518
521
998

Y
4 Y
Y
4 N
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

211A
211B

1912
1959

$2,000,000
$1,250,000

$10,000,000 K -6
$6,614,460 7 - 1 2

500
350

Y
3 Y

Y
Y

$4,000
$50,000

$20,000
$5,000

212a
212b
212c

1950
1960
1988

$500,000
$500,000

$7,000,000 K -5
$8,000,000 6 - 8
$11,000,000 9 - 1 2

788
381
454

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
N

$150,000
$100,000

$200,000
$100,000

301a
301 b
301 c

1984
1926
1965

$4,200,000 k - 5
$3,400,000 6 - 8
$7,500,000 9 - 1 2

679
419
509

302a

1988

$7,700,000 9 - 1 2

579

$650,000
$4,400,000
$450,000

$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$8,000,000

88

$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$400,000

$90,000

$314,000
$725,000
$20,000 $260,000
$34,000 $225,000
$425,000 $1,250,000
$346,000

Y
Y

100000
100000
150000
75000
50000

180000
50000

65000
300000
150000
210000
150000

$80,000

35000
50000
80000
25000
30000
$25,000
$22,000
$28,000
$28,000

$125,000
$50,000
$50,000

$150,000
$175,000
$450,000
$150,000
$150,000
$100,000

$200,000
$400,000

$60,000
$100,000
$20,000

$15,000
$15,000
$100,000
$100,000

302b
302c
302d
302e

1975
1960
1921

401A
401B
401C

1972
1966
1962

$1,000,000
$400,000
$650,000

403A
403B
403C

1950
1959
1991

$350,000
$7,194,255

404A
404B

1932
1973

$4,500,000

405a
405b
405c
405d

1961
1952
1961
1928

$8,000,000

501a
501b
501c
501 d
501 e
501 f
501 g
501 h
501 i
501 j
501k
5011
501 m

1953
1918
1949
1958
1960
1921
1958
1975
1928
1961
1954
1927
1925

508A
5Q8B

1945
1975

$2,500,000

509A
509B

1966
1956

$575,000
$725,000

601A
601B
601C
601D
601E

1917
19261
1935
1934
1974|

$4,000,000 6 - 8
$2,100,000 k - 5
$400,000 k - 5
k -5

448
437
80
446

$6,150,000 6 - 8
$2,620,000 K -5
$2,650,000 9 - 1 2

271
515
374

Y
1 Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

$7,000,000 6 - 8
$8,000,000 K -5
$8,000,000 9 - 1 2

270
550
350

N
N
Y

Y
Y
N

$125,000

$3,500,000 K -6
7 -1 2

461
452

Y
Y

N
N

$4,400,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000

9 -1 2
7 -8
k -6
k -6

600

y

7 -8
k -6
k -6
k -6
k -6
k -6
k -6
9 -1 2
7 -8
k -6
k -6
k -6
k -6

568
342
815
406
275
428
434
1573
1126
456
289
238
378

y

y
y
y
y

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

$3,600,000 K -8
$5,100,000 9 - 1 2

616
270

Y
Y

Y
N

$1,387,200 1 - 5
$4,182,000 7 - 1 2

352
397

Y
Y

Y
Y

$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$7,000,000
$7,500,000

317
220
250
417
562

1 N
N
2 N
2 N
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

$100,000
$300,000
$309,000
$955,000

$1,300,000
$600,000
$700,000
$150,000
$200,000
$1,300,000
$300,000
$2,800,000
$2,700,000
$400,000
$300,000
$555,000
$750,000

$4,800,000

$75,000

$500,000
$200,000
$600,000
$500,000
$150,000

$6,440,000
$3,080,000
$4,900,000
$1,900,000
$2,700,000
$6,000,000
$2,400,000
$24,700,000
$12,100,000
$3,700,000
$8,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000

K -8
K -5
K -5
K -8
9 -1 2

430
560
340

89

$200,000
$200,000

$40,000
$40,000

n
n
n

n

y
y
y
y
y
y
n

$10,000

$30,000

$15,000

$100,000
$50,000

$100,000
$65,000

$89,000
$40,000
$50,000
$85,000
$40,000

$35,000
$20,000
$30,000
$25,000
$100,000

$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000

602A
602B
602C
602D
602E
602F

1958
1959
1962
1965
1948
1963

$713,603
$636,627
$695,000
$320,000
$900,000
$3,400,000

$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$150,000
$400,000
$1,000,000

701A
701B
701C

1930
1960
1978

$995,000
$1,298,500

$700,000

702A

1945

805A
805B
805C
805D

1989
1985
1975
1958

$2,000,000
$2,750,000
$4,200,000
$2,600,000

809A
809B
809C
809D
809E
809F

1965
1951
1934
1956
1962
1957

$1,969,000
$340,000
$600,000
$600,000
$725,000
$470,000

$670,000
$850,000
$1,500,000
$1,400,000
$1,400,000
$5,500,000
$530,000
$2,600,000

$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,300,000
$1,100,000
$3,300,000
$9,125,000

K -6
K -6
K -6
K -6
7 -8
9 -1 2

509
551
613
194
383
729

2 Y
4 Y
2 Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

$7,000,000 5 - 8
$6,000,000 9 - 1 2
$4,000,000 K - 4

464
336
614

1 N
Y
3 Y

Y
N
Y

K -1 2

343

Y

N

$2,500,000
$3,700,000
$6,072,000
$8,400,000

4 -5
K -3
6 -8
9 -1 2

363
751
502
639

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
Y

$6,500,000
$2,740,000
$1,300,000
$13,500,000
$2,900,000
$3,500,000

6 -8
1 -5
K
9 -1 2
1 -5
1 -5

800
485
320
920
485
425

8 Y
Y
Y
2 Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

90

$250,000

$200,000

$100,000

$1,500,000

$500,000
$300,000

$500,000

$100,000

$300,000

$450,000
$1,500

ASSESSMEID
GROUND

BLDG.
TOTAL

OTHER

102
$5

$48,000 GOOD

102a
103

$20,000
$20,000
$10,000

$220,000
$115,000
$105,000
$45,000
$225,000

fair
GOOD
GOOD
EXCELLEN
GOOD

103a
103b
103c
103d
103e
104

$80,000
$20,000

$145,000 FAIR
$200,000 FAIR

104A
104B

25000 fair

105a

350000 good

106a

$49,000 GOOD

107a

105
106
150000

107
$18,000

108
$225,000 EXC

108A
201

EXC
FAIR
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
EXC
POOR
GOOD
GOOD

201A
201B
201C
201D
201E
201F
201G
201H
2011
201J
202

$588,153
$601,896
$719,450
$170,255
$654,710
$504,600
$947,705
$468,995
$440,810

fair
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
$738,400 good

202a
202b
202c
202d
202e
202f
202g
202h
202i
202j
202k

91

$385,210
$611,650
$630,850
$356,700
$448,465
$341,350
$406,850
$556,870
$637,800
$484,750
$192,059
$287,409
$745,271
$750,201
$364,917
$85,682
$748,702
$756,284
$974,263
$1,117,489
$313,760
$463,210
$122,005
$4,695,400
$2,645,960
$1,485,280
$2,627,830
$926,850
$3,740,410
$1,632,000
$3,529,300

good
good
fair
good
good
good
good
fair
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
fair
good
good
good
fair
good
good
good
good
good
fair
good

2021
202m
202n
202o
202p
202q
202r
202s
202t
202u
202v
202w
202x
202v
202z
202aa
202ab
202ab
202ao
202ad
202ae
202af
202ag
202ah
202ai
202aj
202ak
202al
202am
202an
202ao
202ap
203

$10,000
$25,000

$60,000

$200,000 poor
$270,000 fair
$50,000 good

203a
203b
203c
204

$700,000
$200,000

$1,000,000
$600,000
$100,000
$100,000
$80,000

GOOD
FAIR
EXC
EXC
EXC

204A
204B
204C
204D
204E

$1,400,000 FAIR
$400,000 GOOD

205A
205B

205
$400,000

92

$500,000
$400,000

$300,000
$800,000
$700,000
$340,000
$300,000
$400,000

GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD

205C
205D
205E
205F
205G
205H
206

EXCELLEN 206a
EXCELLEN 206b
FAIR
206o
207
$45,000
$60,000
$84,000
$25,000
$2,250,000

$799,000
$860,000
$714,000
$434,000
$2,050,000
$446,000

GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
EXC

207A
207B
207C
207D
207E
207F
208
209

200000
450000
560000
360000
230000

good
poor
exc
fair
fair

209a
209b
209o
209d
209e

EXCELLEN
EXC
EXC
EXC
EXC
GOOD
EXC

21OA
21 OB
21OC
21OD
21OE
21 OF
21OG

210
$20,000

$125,000
$22,000
$178,000
$48,000
$50,000
$310,000
$500,000

$25,000
$20,000

211
$20,000
$20,000

$55,000

$150,000 GOOD
$90,000 GOOD

211A
211B

$50,000

$200,000
$50,000

$700,000 GOOD
$350,000 FAIR
GOOD

212a
212b
212c

212

301
good
good
good

301a
301b
301c

good

302a

302

93

good
exc
fair

302b
302c
302d
302e
401

$130,000
$4,000
$7,000

$130,000 GOOD
$4,000 GOOD
$7,000 GOOD

401A
401B
401C
403

$80,000

$280,000 FAIR
403A
$200,000 GOOD
403B
EXCELLEN 403C
404

$5,000

FAIR
EXC

404A
404B

good
good
good
good

405a
405b
405c
405d

good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good

501a
501b
501c
501 d
501 e
501 f
501 g
501 h
501 i
501 j
501k
5011
501m

405

501

508
$55,000 FAIR
GOOD

508A
508B

$1,600,000 GOOD
$200,000 GOOD

509A
509B

509
$1,500,000
$50,000

601
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$25,000
$10,000

$250,000
$120,000
$140,000
$185,000
$200,000

GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD

601A
601B
601C
601D
601E

94

602
$200,000
$50,000
$50,000
$700,000
$50,000
$250,000

GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD

602A
602B
602C
602D
602E
602F

$500,000 POOR
$3,100,000 FAIR
$950,000 GOOD

701A
701B
701C

GOOD

702A

EXC
EXC
GOOD
$715,000 FAIR

805A
805B
8Q5C
805D

$533,000
$7,600
$1,700
$11,300
$14,000
$5,500

809A
809B
809C
809D
809E
809F

$200,000
$50,000
$50,000
$700,000
$50,000
$500,000

701
$500,000
$150,000

$600,000

702
805

$15,000

809
$83,000
$6,100
$1,700
$11,300
$14,000
$5,500

GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
GOOD

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abramson, P. (1987, April).
13th annual school and
college construction report. American School & U n i v e r s i t y .
59 pp. 25-30.
American Association of School Administrators, Council
of Great City Schools, and National School Boards Assoc ia­
tion.
(1983, January.)
The m ai nte nan ce g a p :
de ferred
repair and renovation in the n a t i o n s 1s elementary and sec­
ondary schools.
Argon, Joe (1992, June).
Passing the test.
School & University, pp. 26-32.

American

Barr, W.M. & Jordan, K. F. (1970) .
Financing public
e l e m en tar y and seco nd ary school facilities.
Planning in
Finance E d u c a t i o n . ed. R. L. Johns, Alexander & K. F. J o r ­
dan.
Gainesville, FL:
National Education Finance Project.
Bass, G. R. (1988, Winter).
The financing of capital
ou tlay exp en dit ur es in Ok lahoma public school districts.
Journal of Education Finance. 13
(4), pp. 394-399.
Blair, B. (1987, J a n u a r y ) .
Long ra ng e f a c i l i t i e s
master p l a n . 1986-2000.
(Report).
San Diego, CA:
San
Diego Unified School District.
Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. Walker,
390 N. E. 2d. 813, (Ohio 1979).
Bowers, J. H. & Burkett,
C. W. (1987, O c t ) . "Relatinship of S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in Two
Selected Facility Enviromental Settings."
15p.
ED286278
EA 019674.
Burrup, P. E. (1977).
Financing education in a climate
of change. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Casta ldi , Basil, E d u c a t i o n a l Fac il iti es. P l a n n i n g .
M o d e r i z a t i o n and M a n a g e m e n t . 3rd Edition, Allen & Bocan.
(1987) .
Christiensen, et a l . v.
86-1390, (Flordia 1988).

Bob Graham,

et al.

Case No.

Clark, J. E. & Hertz, K. V. (Eds.).
(1984).
Mai or
topics of school b us iness m a n age men t in the m i d - 1 9 8 0 1s .
Park Ridge, II:
Research Corporation of the Association of
School business Officials of the United States.
Coop er man , S. (1989).
Commissioner's
Abbott v. Burke OAL Docket No. EDU 5581-88.
Corcoran,

T. B . , Walker,

L. S.,

96

& White,

decision
J. S.

in

(1988)

Working in Urban Schools.
Educational Leadership.

Washington, D. C . :

Institute for

Devin, M. E. (.1985) . Deferred repair and renovation in
selected Kansas public s c h o ol s. Unpublished doctoral d is­
sertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
Diaz, et a l . v. C o l o r a d o St ate B oa rd of E du cation,
Superior Court of Colorado City and County of Denver, No. c73688, (1977).
Eart hm an G. I. (1985, July-August).
E v a lua tin g the
impact of the building enviroment on the individual.
CEFP
J o u r na l. 23., (4), pp. 15-17.
Earthman, G. I.
((1986, Nov.) Research Needs in the
F i e l d of E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t y P l a n n i n g .
ED283301
EA
019533.
E d g e w o o d I n d e p e n d e n t S chool D i s t r i c t b. Kirby, No.
362,516 (Dist. Ct. of Travis County, 250th Jud. Dist. Texas,
June 1987).
Education Writer Association.
Wolves at the schoolhou se d o o r : An investigation of the condition of public
school buildings. Report prepared by The Education Writers
Association, Washington, D. C . : Education Writers Associa­
tion, 1989.
Eubanks, D. L. (1985, January). School facility evalu­
ation:
physical plant and instructional pro gra m— Do they
work together?
School Business A ffairs. 51 (1), p. 22.
Gardener, L. (1984) , N ov e m b e r ) . Philadelphia schools
to spend $24 million to remove asbestos.
Energy User News,
pp. 1-9.
Geske, T. G. Y LaCost, B. Y. (1988 Winter) . The fi­
nance of public school facilities in Louisiana:
a case
study in inequity.
Journal of Education Finance 13., (3),
pp. 355-363.
Graves, B. E. (1982 October). Facility planning:
How
do st ate r e q u i r e m e n t s for school c o n s t r u c t i o n com p a r e ?
American School and University. p. 14.
Graves, B. E. (1983).
Guide to alternatives for fi­
nancing school buildings.
CEFP Journal. 2 1 . (6), p. 7.
Green, R. (1987).
C h a l l e n g e s to u r b a n e d u c a t i o n .
Washington, D.C.:
Council of Great City Schools.
Griffith, W. J.
in higher education.

(1984).
Capital resources management
CEFP Journal. 2 2 . (3), pp.4-6.

97

Haas, D. S. & Sparkman, W. E. (1988 Winter).
Financing
school facilities in Texas.
Journal of Education F i n a n c e .
13 (3), pp. 412-420.
Hathaway,
H. E. & Fieder, D. R. (1986, Sep).
"A Window
on the Future: A View of Education and Educational Facili­
ties."
Columbus, Ohio.
CEFP.
Helena Elementary School District v.
Couse No. ADV—85—370, January 3, 1988.

State of Montana,

Hill, F. W. (1985, March).
Asbestos:
1985/86 budget
priority.
American School & University, pp. 84-87.
Honeyman, D. S. (1989, March-April).
for school buildings.
C E F P 1s Edcuational
pp.4-6.

A growing concern
Facility Planner,

Honeymay, David
S. & Others (1987) A Technical Report
on the Co ndition of School Buildings in Rural and Small
School Districts.
121p.
Report RC016907
ED302373.
H o n e y m a n , D.
S. & S t e w a r t ,
G. K. (1985, W i n t e r ) .
Capital fund mechanisms and the condition of facilities in
rural and small schools.
Re se a r c h in Rural E d u c a t i o n . 3.
(2), pp. 79-83.
Honeyman, D.
S. & Stewart,
G. K. (1985).
Capital
o u t l a y m e c h a n i s m s and the c o n d i t i o n of ru ral and small
Kansas schools.
Kansas School Board J o u rna l, 24 1, pp. 1113, 25.
Honeyman, D.
S., & Wood, R.
C., T h om pso n, D. C., &
Stewart, G. K . , (1988, Win te r). The fisc al s u p p o r t of
school facilities in rural and small schools.
Journal of
Education Finance. 13 (3), pp. 227-239.
Honeyman, D. S., Thompson, D. C. , & Wood, R. C. (July,
1989) .
E q u i t y a nd s c h o o l f i n a n c e in r u r a l a n d s m a l 1
schools.
(Report).
T opeka, K S :
Appalachia Education
Labatory.
Hudson, C. C. (1988, Winter).
Financing public elemen­
tary and secondary school facilities in Nebraska.
Journal
of Education Finance, 13.(3), pp. 338-341.
H u g h e s , 0. D., & G a l l e g o s , A. M. (1988, W i n t e r ) .
Capital outlay in New Mexico.
Journal of Education Finance.
13 (3), pp. 371-373.
Jenkins v. State of Missouri.
W. E. Mo. 639 F Supp 19,
aff as mod 807 f2d 657, (September 1987).
Jordan, K. F. (1988, Winter).
Financing capital outlay
and debt service in Arizona.
Journal of Education finance.

98

13 (3), pp. 290-296.
King, R. A., & M a c P h a i l - W i l c o x , B. (1988, Winter).
B r i c k s - a n d - m o r t a r r e f o r m in N o r t h Carolina:
the state
assumes a larger role in financing school construction.
Journal of Education Finance. 1 3 . (3), pp. 374-381.
Larson, C. T. (1971).
University of Michigan Research
Institute Proiect (Report). Ann Arbor MI:
University of
Michigan.
Leggett, S., Murphy, A. W. & Hill, F. W. (1983, July).
Elderly school syndrome— or, how to make budget estimates
for major school rehabilitation.
American School & Univer­
si t y . pp. 50-51, 68.
1005,

Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education.
(1982).

649 P. 2d

Lutz, R. W. , Betz, L. E ., & Maddirala, J. S. (1987).
The Texas school facilities s t u d y :
1986-1 99 6.
(Report),
Austin, TX:
Te xas D e p a r t m e n t of Ed ucation, C e n t e r for
P o l i c y S t u d i e s in R e s e a r c h in E l e m e n t a r y and S e c o n d a r y
Education.
McCormick, K. (1985, May).
Progress and new problems
mark your battle against school asbestos.
American School
St University, pp. 172-3.
Me Guffey, C.
"Facilities."
Improving Educational
Standards &. Productivity. Herbert J. Walbert (ed.).
Berke­
ley, Callifornia:
Mc Cu t c h a n Pu blishing Corp., 1982, pp.
237-288.
M i c h i g a n S c hoo l B u s i n e s s O ff icials,
Educational K-12 Infrastucture Report.

(1985,

Dec.)

Newman, M. (October 4, 1989).
Heated debate marks New
Jersey school finance hearing.
Education W e e k . 19(5). pp.
14-16.
Nort h Carolina State Board of Education.
Improving
School F a c i lit ies . Report prepared by the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Raleigh:
State Board of Educa­
tion, 1987.
Niece, R.
(1988, May)
NASSP Bulletin. "The Impact of
Enviroment on Teaching and Learning."
p. 79-81.
Oklahoma State Department of Education.
State Capital
Improvement Master Plan for Public Common S c h o o l s . Report
Prep ar ed by the Ok lahoma State Department of Education,
Ok lahoma City:
Oklahoma State Department of Education,
1987.

99

Pauley v. Kelly,
W. Va. May 11, 1982.

No.

7-1268

(Kanawaha County Cir.

Pipho, Chris.
(1990, March)
Funding
Infrastructure.
Phi Delta Ka ppan, p. 502-503.
Reeves, R. D. (1985, A p r i l ) .
American School & University. p.41.

Ct.

a Crumbling

Let the building teach.

Robberson, G. E. (1985, February).
Effective schools
research:
A guide to school improvement.
ERS Concerns for
Education.
Robinson v. Cahill.
929

62 N.J. 473, 303A. 2d 27 (1973).

Serrano II, 18 Cal. 3d 728, 135 Cal. Rptr.
(1976).
Shofstall v. Hollins, 515 p. 2d 590,

345 557 p.2d

(1973).

Smith, T.E.C. (1984, February).
Opening doors:
Facil­
ity p l a n n i n g is the key to a c c e s s i b l e p r o g r a m s for the
handicapped.
American School &. University. pp. 64-66.
South Carolina Department of Education.
(1987, Febru­
ary) .
Statewide school building f a c i l i t i e s .
( Rep o r t ) .
Columbia, SC.
Stenzler, Yale (1988). Interface Concepts and Special
Education/Handicapped Facilities,
CEFP J o u rn al, Jul-Aug, p.
29-32.
Stevenson, K. R. & Leonard, L. O.
(1988, Winter).
The
funding of school facilities in South Carolina.
Journal of
Education Finance. 13 (3), pp. 405-411.
Swinden, T. (1986, November).
What are schools
Phi Delta Kappan. 86 (4), pp. 223-224.

for?

Tennessee Small Counties System v. Governor McWherter
et al.
Filed in the C hancery Court for Dav idson County,
Tennessee, (July, 1988).
T hompson, D. C. (1990, Nov.) M e t h o d s of F i n a n c i n g
E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s in the U n i t e d State.
R e p ort ,
EA022523. 20p. ED327916.
T hompson, D. C. and Others.
(1988, March)
St at e
Imvolvement In Capitol Outlay Financing:
Policy Inplications for the Future.
Report RC016916 56p.
ED302376.
Thompson, D. C. & Camp. W. E. (1988, Winter).
Analysis
of Equity in capital outlay funding mechanisms in Kansas.
Journal of Education Finance. 13 (3), pp. 253-263.

100

Thompson, D. C. , Stewart, G. K. & Camp, W. E. (1989).
Capital outlay funding as an educational equity issue:
An
empirical examination.
Research in Rural Education. 6 (1).
pp. 25-31.
Thomp son , D. C. , Honey ma n, D. S. & Stewart, G. K.
(1988).
Achievement of equity in capital outlay funding for
Kansas s c h o o l s : A policy critique (Report). Topeka, KS:
Kansas Association of School Boards and Appalachian Educa­
tional Laboratory.
Verstengen, D. A. (1988, Spring).
Bu il d i n g for the
future:
Capital outlay financing in Virgina's public ele­
mentary and secondary education sector.
Journal of Educa­
tion Finance. 13 (4), pp. 429-435.
Webber, G. D. (1941)
State equ al i z a t i o n of capital
outlay for public school buildings. Los Angeles:
Universi­
ty of Southern California Press.
Weinstein, C.
(1979, Fall).
The physical enviroment
of a school: A review of research.
Review of Educational
Research. 49, (4), pp. 577-610.
We i n s t e i n , C. S.
"The P h y s i c a l E n v i r o m e n t of the
School:
A Review of the Research."
Review of Educational
Research, Fall 1979, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 577-610.
Wood, R. C. (1986)
m a n a g e m e n t . Reston, VA:
Officials International.

P r i n c i p l e s of sc hool b u s i n e s s
A ss oci a t i o n of School Business

Wood, R. C. & Alexander, M. D. (1983, Winter).
The
financing of educational facilities.
Planning and Changing.
14 (3), pp. 165-79.
Wright, D. (1987,
operation cost study.
27-29.

March). 16th annual
American School and

Wright, D. (1988,
operation cost study.
34.

April). 17th annual
maintenance and
American School &. University, pp. 32-

101

maintenance and
U n i v e r s i t y .pp.