Departments of Labor and Health, Education, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island, Chairman ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico, Chairman for Related Agencies JOHN TABER, New York T. MILLET HAND, New Jersey BEN F. JENSEN, Iowa WINFIELD K. DENTON, Indiana ROBERT M. MOYER, Staff Assistant to the Subcommittee Investigation of Administration of School Construction in 79020 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1956 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico PRINCE H. PRESTON, Georgia OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois JOHN TABER, New York RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR., New York EARL WILSON, Indiana GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania GERALD R. FORD, JR., Michigan EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland KENNETH SPRANKLE, Clerk and Staff Director (II) J61 84th DOCUMENTS DEPT. DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1957 INVESTIGATION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1956. OF ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS WITNESSES DR. SAMUEL M. BROWNELL, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION RALL I. GRIGSBY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SCHOOL ASSISTANCE IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS B. ALDEN LILLYWHITE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS CURTIS BOOHER, CHIEF, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION SECTION, DIVISION OF SCHOOL ASSISTANCE IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS Mr. FOGARTY. Dr. Brownell, as you know, last fall in the Committee on Appropriations there was some question raised as to the expenditure of some of the funds for construction of schools in areas of Federal impact. Dr. BROWNELL. Yes, sir. Mr. FOGARTY. As a result of that question being raised, investigators of the committee went out into the field and made an investigation of the administration of this program. At the suggestion of Mr. Taber and others we gave you a copy of their report to look over when you appeared before our committee at our regular hearings on the 1957 budget. Then you gave us an answer to that report, and every member of the committee received a copy of the report and your answer. Subsequently I asked the investigators to give us their comments on your answer and I am told that a copy of their comments was sent to you yesterday; is that correct? Dr. BROWNELL. Yes, sir. Mr. FOGARTY. Due to the importance of this matter, I think we should have in the record the investigators' report, the Office of Education's reply to that report, and the committee staff investigators' analysis of the reply. (The matters referred to follow:) (1) INVESTIGATION REPORT A REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON ASSISTANCE FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE By the Surveys and Investigations Staff, September 1955 DIRECTIVE . By directive dated March 4, 1955, the Committee on Appropriations instructed' that an inquiry be made into the administration of the program of assistance for school construction by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (including the technical assistance rendered by other agencies) to determine whether the program is being administered in such a way as to assure that Federal. funds are not used, directly or indirectly, to plan or construct more elaborate facilities than the minimum necessary for the conduct of an educational program that meets the standards generally prevailing in the respective States. SCOPE OF STUDY In pursuing this directive, members of this staff reviewed Public Law 815, 81st Congress, now amended by Public Law 246, 83d Congress, which provided for assistance for school construction in federally affected areas. Conferences were had with key personnel in the United States Office of Education (OE) and the Community Facilities Administration (CFA) of the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA) to ascertain the established policy, regulations, and procedures for the administration of the school-construction laws. Files maintained at these agencies on individual school districts were reviewed to determine the mechanics of filing and processing applications and approval of project plans to construct school facilities. Other information available in these files included estimates of the school facilities existing and needed in the districts, the type of school facilities to be constructed, and cost of such facilities.. The method of determining the amount of Federal funds available to school: districts was carefully analyzed as the amounts are not fixed by law but are determined by the Office of Education. Members of the staff inspected 290 federally aided school projects in a total of 147 separate school districts located in 21 States. The States selected for visitation received approximately 78.5 percent of all the Federal funds spent for school construction through September 30, 1954. An equal number of school projects financed entirely with local and/or State funds were inspected in the same school districts. The field trips concentrated on those school districts which received the largest amount of Federal funds and localities engaged in the most active school-building program. Further consideration in the selection was given to those projects which costwise appeared to reflect either a high cost per square foot or high cost per pupil or both. State educational agencies were contacted to determine the State schoolconstruction programs, whether or not the States assisted local school districts in financing school facilities, minimum standards or criteria established by the States, and extent of supervisory aid to the local districts with respect to the school-construction program. Since under Public Law 815 the educational agency must approve the applications submitted by the local school districts for Federal assistance and also make certain certifications, the staff inquired into the thoroughness of this operation by the various State agencies. Some State agencies were able to provide information with respect to actual cost of constructing school facilities throughout the State. Local school superintendents, architects, and field representatives of OE and CFA were interviewed concerning the Federal assistance to the school-construction program. OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS States in general have no prescribed, fixed, or definite standards which could be used for the purpose of this inquiry. The prevailing construction practices of each State are determined by the programs and facilities of hundreds and in many States thousands of school districts which are of unequal size, vary in financial ability, and have different philosophies about the importance of the school in the community. Several approaches can be used to determine if a school facility is elaborate. Even the most reasonable of people familiar with school construction and school finance do not always agree that a particular school facility is elaborate or even relatively elaborate. In reaching its determination the staff took into consideration cost per square foot, construction cost per pupil, amount and type of equipment, area per pupil, and the general nature of the facilities furnished for various educational functions. It should be noted that the term "minimum facilities" used in Public Law 246 and its definition by the OE is not necessarily the same as the phrase "more elaborate than the minimum necessary for the conduct of an educational program that meets the standard generally prevailing in the respective States." A "complete" school facility is not necessarily elaborate and, conversely, an "elaborate" school facility is not necessarily "complete." The responsibility of OE is to limit Federal funds to finance school construction to the amount necessary to provide minimum facilities. On December 17, 1951, OE issued its definition of "minimum" facilities which included necessary instructional rooms, and, where necessary, other special rooms such as cafeteria or lunchroom, study hall, library, or playroom. Single-purpose auditoria or single-purpose gymnasia are considered to be in excess of minimum facilities. All-purpose rooms utilized for two or more functions are considered minimum by OE. Given below are staff observations, based on this inquiry, into the administration of the school assistance in federally affected areas program. Details in support of the observations are to be found later on in this report. 1. Most of the school facilities which have been financed with Federal assistance are not more elaborate than the minimum necessary for the conduct of the educational program which generally prevails in the State wherein the school facility is located. This is not due to the administration of the program by OE but rather to the fact that school districts generally are constructing school facilities which are functional in design and relatively low in cost due to the needs of the school districts and the frugality of superintendents and school boards. 2. Most States consider school construction to be a local problem. Those States which have planning staffs that provide aid of a financial and technical nature to the local school districts are benefiting most from this program. Such staffs are able to give advice to the local districts concerning improved designs and construction methods to effect savings and to point out techniques which have been costly and failed to serve the purpose for which originally designed. 3. A few individual school facilities appeared more complete and elaborate than generally prevailed within the State. These facilities were financed with both local and Federal funds. The facilities considered to be elaborate, with one exception, had been approved by OE on the basis that local funds would be used to finance facilities in excess of those considered to be minimum. Many school districts are combining local funds and Federal funds to construct school facilities which are better, more complete, and cost more than those financed without Federal aid. In this way the Federal Government is contributing indirectly to the construction of more elaborate school facilities than would have been constructed if no Federal aid had been provided. This is not generally true of those school districts which have a relatively low assessed property valuation per pupil and which have had large enrollment increases in recent years. 4. It appears that the OE has no way of assuring itself that school facilities financed with Federal assistance are not more elaborate or even more complete than those being financed with local funds only. The OE reviews the preliminary plans submitted by the local district for the educational adequacy and is not concerned with the qualitative characteristics. The States do not prescribe qualitative standards. The absence of qualitative controls has enabled some school districts to secure Federal assistance to finance facilities which were more expensive than necessary to conduct a sound educational program consistent with those of the State. 5. The CFA supervises the construction of school facilities for the OE. This agency's primary responsibility is to inspect school facilities in the process of construction to assure that the plans and specifications are receiving compliance. CFA has no authority to establish minimum design, material standards, or any other standard. These factors in the construction of school facilities are left to the individual school districts. |