Skip to content

Tag: Equality

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters.

In 1973 Thurgood Marshall wrote the dissenting opinion in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez:

It is an inescapable fact that if one district has more funds available per pupil than another district, the former will have greater choice in educational planning than will the latter. In this regard, I believe the question of discrimination in educational quality must be deemed to be an objective one that looks to what the State provides its children, not to what the children are able to do with what they receive. That a child forced to attend an underfunded school with poorer physical facilities [emphasis added], less experienced teachers, larger classes, and a narrower range of courses than a school with substantially more funds—and thus with greater choice in educational planning—may nevertheless excel is to the credit of the child, not the State. Indeed, who can ever measure for such a child the opportunities lost and the talents wasted for want of a broader, more enriched education?

Though written 42 years ago, we continue to face many of the same disparities. I wrote about educational disparities a few months ago, but I would like to be more specific in my concerns. As a college professor in educational leadership, hardly a day goes by that an article, a conference announcement, an email, or a piece of research comes across my desk about the achievement gap. The gap is a real detriment to our country with a waste of talent, and immeasurable in its affect on our society.

In the same articles, email, or research, varied solutions are proposed. Nearly all of them go back to the genesis of teaching, leadership, technology, supplies, class size, and/or many other suggestions, and some, if not all, of these factors may be interrelated. Sad to say, there is only a small group of educators in America who relate some of the achievement gap to where our children learn. There is even a more select group that conducts research relating the gap to the condition of the schools. The schools in most need of repair are often those who report lower overall achievement scores. These schools are found in the poor areas of our cities, towns, and rural districts and are disproportionately attended by severe low-income and minority students.

The question is: Are these facilities contributing to the achievement gap? The Education Facilities Clearinghouse recently commissioned C. Kenneth Tanner, Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, to conduct a meta-analysis of effects of school design on student success. He was able to identify best practices in schools and school design:

  • Safety and security measures, as defined by Tanner’s meta-analysis, have a statistically significant impact on student outcomes.

Students need to feel free from gangs, hunger, intruders, violence, social disparities, and persecution. As Maslow’s hierarchy indicates, humans need to feel secure and have a sense of belonging, safety, and confidence. Have you noted inner city schools in which the very physical setting alarmed your sense of safety and security?

  • Quiet places and spaces for reflection have a statistically significant influence on student outcomes.

Students need places that make them feel they are needed and belong in the school environment. Again, Maslow wrote about self-actualization and its dependence on both belonging and a place for reflection. All children need small personal learning spaces, alcoves to read, and small group spaces for interaction in safe, dry, and clean facilities. In poorly funded districts, overcrowding and inadequate facility maintenance are more often the reality.

  • Color is statistically significant in its effect on student achievement.

Tanner (2015) wrote: “Color patterns throughout the facility can influence motivation. Hot colors encourage students to become more physically active, while cool colors tend to convey a reassuring effect.” If you have not seen them personally, think about the school facility pictures you have seen where the paint is so old, dull, and peeled you cannot even tell what color it is. Sad to say, students affected by the achievement gap often are relegated to these rundown schools.

  • Ample state-of-the-art technology for teachers and students makes a statistically significant contribution to student achievement.

It is impossible for the educator to know how teaching and learning will be influenced by technology in the future; however, are students in our less wealthy districts being afforded the same technological opportunities as students in the more wealthy districts? How can we expect the same outcomes without the same opportunities; i.e., computers to take home (iPads, Chromebooks, or other handheld devices), computer labs, and teachers knowledgeable about technology and how to use it as a learning and teaching tool?

These are only four of Tanner’s statistically significant findings. In total he identified twelve findings and fifteen best practices. All fifteen classifications in his research are postulated to have positive effects on student outcomes. I encourage you to read his research and ask yourself the question: Are your schools providing equal facilities to all children? Or, are there inequities that may contribute to the achievement gap?

As noted a few paragraphs ago, Marshall spoke of poor school facilities over four decades ago. He did not call it the achievement gap, but he spoke of opportunities lost and talents wasted. We can debate how to solve the problem, and discussion is needed. The school facility, however, is a “fixable” component of improving student achievement. Why are so many schools districts across the nation not enabled to improve the places where our students learn—especially for the minority and low-income students most affected by the achievement gap?

References and Resources:

Ballenger, K. A. (2014). The grave disparities in modern education, segregation, and school budgeting: A comparison between Brown v. Board of Education and San Antonio Independent School System District v. Rodriguez. Knoxville, TN: Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange.

Lacoe, J. (2013, March). Too scared to learn? The academic consequences of feeling unsafe at school. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy (IESP). Retrieved on August 7, 2015 from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/ggg5/Working_Paper_02-13.pdf

Martorell, P., McFarlin, Jr., I., & Stange, K. (2014, December). Investing in schools: Capital spending, facility conditions, and student achievement. Retrieved from Federal Reserve Bank of New York on August 7, 2015: http://m.newyorkfed.org/research/education_seminar_series/Stange.pdf

Service Employees International Union. (n.d.). Falling further apart: Decaying schools in New York City’s Poorest Neighborhoods. Retrieved on August 7, 2015: http://www.seiu32bj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/falling-further-apart1.pdf

Smith, C. D. (2014). Continued disparities in school facilities: Analyzing Brown v. Board of Education’s singular approach to quality education. Tennessee Journal of Race, Gender, & Social Justice, 3(1), p. 38-66.

Tanner, C. K. (2015). Effects of school architectural designs on students’ Accomplishments: An meta-analysis. Retrieved from the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) on August 17, 2015: http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/effects-of-school-architectural-designs-on-students-accomplishments-a-meta-analysis/

Vincent, J. M., & Filardo, M. W. (2008, June). Linking school construction investments to equity, smart growth, and healthy communities. Retrieved from Center for Cities & Schools (CC&S) and Building Educational Success Together (BEST) on August 7, 2015: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/Vincent_Filardo_2008_Linking_School_Construction_Jun2008.pdf

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse

Linda is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of the George Washington University, where she advises students, directs student research, and directs a project at Taibah University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Her areas of expertise and research include educational planning, facilities management, and women CEOs. She actively conducts research concerning the effects of the facility on the student and teacher, publishes within her field, and has written or edited numerous books including School Maintenance & Renovation: Administrator Policies, Practices, and Economics and book chapters including a recent chapter, Places Where Children Play, published July, 2014 in Marketing the Green School: Form, Function, and the Future.

Published on

Wright, 2012

Education is pivotal for the existence of humans. Education is used to develop minds in a myriad of ways for an individual to excel in critical thinking and fundamental learning. In America, education is a valuable resource for one’s social, economic and mental standing in society. About 86% of Americans now receive college degrees, compared to the 25% in 1927 (Pew Research Center, 2011). But education is still treated as a privilege instead of a right. Public education in urban areas is said to be significantly worse than in suburban areas. Only about 19% of students from urban school districts seek higher education compared to 70% of their suburban counterparts (Pew Research Center, 2011). Suburban and urban sectors of the education system are drastically different due to resources, teacher attrition rate, and lack of parental support. Funds are allocated to the top performing schools, leaving many low performing schools at a plateau to produce mediocrity. Consequently, even when education laws such as No Child Left Behind and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act which are suppose to create equity are implemented in schools, they instead create inequality in America’s public school system. Students in certain regions remain at a disadvantage, as one district is favored based on performance over low-performing districts. Using the Social Closure Theory, this comparative study tests the hypothesis that if school systems were granted equal access to the same funds and materials, then the disparities between suburban and urban school districts would diminish. Qualitative and quantitative data from case studies, scholarly articles and expert interviews were collected and analyzed to show the recursive lack of funding in urban school districts. The substantive findings of this study support the hypothesis tested and the call for equal educational resources for both urban and suburban school systems.

View Articles

Published on

Miller, 2013

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), like many districts, allows use of its classrooms, gymnasiums, and other indoor facilities to external groups, but similar to other districts, SFUSD has struggled to apply use fees consistently, fairly and equitably. Building from the recommendations of the 2010 report, San Francisco's Public School Facilities as Public Assets: A Shared Understanding and Policy Recommendations for the Community Use of Schools, and the working group, this report proposes an updated, revised pricing methodology and fee schedule in accordance with California’s Civic Center to increase transparency, consistency, and align to SFUSD’s education goals.

View Report

Published on

Derlikowski of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

The quality of school facilities can have a major impact on the education that our children receive and whether they succeed in school. Research, court decisions, and states have long recognized that disparities in access to basic school facilities can lead to differences in educational outcomes, especially for low-income students. This brief makes the case that state funding for school facilities should be increased to meet the needs of all districts. The official standard, that facilities need only be warm, safe, and dry, is not good enough.

View Report

Published on

Conlin & Thompson, 2014

We consider issues of equality and efficiency in two different school funding systems - a state-level system in Michigan and a foundation system in Ohio. Unlike Ohio, the Michigan system restricts districts from generating property or income tax revenue to fund operating expenditures. In both states, districts fund capital expenditures with local tax revenue. Our results indicate that although average revenue and expenditures per pupil in Michigan and Ohio are almost identical, the distributions of the various revenue sources are quite different. Ohio’s funding system has greater equality in terms of total revenue, largely due to Ohio redistributing state funds to the least wealthy districts while Michigan does not. We find that relatively wealthy Michigan districts spend more on capital expenditures while relatively wealthy Ohio districts spend more on labor and materials. This suggests that constraints on raising local revenue to fund operating expenditures in Michigan could create efficiency issues.

View Article

Published on

Smith, 2014

Nineteenth-century educator and inventor George Washington Carver said, “Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom.”13 The relationship between education and social mobility has existed since the creation of the public school system and remains an underlying principle of education policy.14 Despite the recognized importance of education in our society, the Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez held that education is not a fundamental right15 and that the government abridging it does not warrant the strictest level of scrutiny. 16 Some scholars, however, argue that Rodriguez only stands for no right to equal funding of education, and does not invalidate claims that students are not receiving an adequate education in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.17 Most notably, in Papasan v. Allain, the Court asserted that “[it] has not yet definitively settled the question whether a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right . . . .” 18 Thus, given the cost of litigation and the uncertainty of success in federal courts, there has been a reasonable shift to state courts, where there is tangible success with adequacy claims.

View Report

12 See infra Part IV.

13 Proclamation No. 6827, 60 Fed. Reg. 49,491 (Sept. 21, 1995) (quoting George Washington Carver in a Presidential Proclamation for National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week).

14 ELAINE M. WALKER, EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY AND THE COURTS 7, 35 (2005) (“The survival of democracy is contingent upon the creation of a body of citizenry who are able to meaningfully participate in the democratic process, and whose participation is not adversely affected by an inadequate education.”).

15 San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 111-112 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting).

16 Id. at 38-40.

17 Michael A. Rebell, The Right to Comprehensive Educational Opportunity, 47 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 47, 91 (2012).

18 Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285 (1986).

Published on

Uline, Tschannen-Moran, and Wolsey, 2009

Accompanying the recent concern for the quality of our nation’s educational infrastructure is a growing body of research connecting the quality of school facilities to both student outcomes including achievement, behavior, and attitude as well as to teacher attitude and behavior. Less is known about the mechanisms of these relationships. This study examines the link between school building quality and student outcomes through the mediating influence of school climate. Results of a recent study confirmed a link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement in both English and mathematics. As well, correlational analyses indicated that quality facilities were significantly positively related to three school climate variables: academic press, teacher professionalism, and community engagement. The quality of facilities was uncorrelated to proportion of students receiving free and reduced priced meals, although the quality of facilities was strongly related to resource support. Finally, results confirmed the hypothesis that school climate plays a mediating role in the effects of the quality of school facilities on student achievement.

View Article

Published on

Uline and Tschannen-Moran, 2008

Purpose – A growing body of research connecting the quality of school facilities to student
performance accompanies recent efforts to improve the state of the educational infrastructure in the
USA. Less is known about the mechanisms of these relationships. This paper seeks to examine the
proposition that part of the explanation may be the mediating influence of school climate.
Design/methodology/approach – Teachers from 80 Virginia middle schools were surveyed
employing measures including the School Climate Index, a seven-item quality of school facilities scale,
as well as three resource support items. Data on student SES and achievement were also gathered.
Bivariate correlational analysis was used to explore the relationships between the quality of facilities,
resource support, school climate, student SES, and student achievement. In addition, multiple
regression was used to test school climate as a mediating variable between the quality of facilities and
student achievement.
Findings – Results confirmed a link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement
in English and mathematics. As well, quality facilities were significantly positively related to three
school climate variables. Finally, results confirmed the hypothesis that school climate plays a
mediating role in the relationship between facility quality and student achievement.
Originality/value – As we face fundamental issues of equity across schools and districts, leaders
struggle to convince taxpayers of the need to invest in replacing and/or renovating inadequate
facilities. Deeper understandings of the complicated interplay between the physical and social
environments of school, and how these dynamics influence student outcomes, may help educators
build a compelling case.

Published on

By Linda Lemasters.

In America we have accepted that public education is critical to the very foundation of our country. One of the topics that is not always considered when we discuss public education is equity. Are all schools provided with the same resources, quality of teaching, facilities, and parental support? We sometimes do not speak the obvious, but think about the schools you have visited in urban areas and how they differ from schools in the suburbs. The literature exposes the achievement gap in urban and suburban areas, but what about the funding gap? What differences are related to the funding in urban and rural areas?

Some of the funding differences may be due to the sprawl of the suburban areas, with suburban areas having higher transportation and utility costs. A study in Nova Scotia indicated the difference in the city’s annual costs per household between suburban and urban infrastructure and transportation in Halifax was $1,623 USD (Figure 1). What is most interesting about this visual, however, is the difference spent on schools, libraries, and school bussing. . .three items, which may relate directly or indirectly to the achievement gap. Some urban children have no free or public transportation to school and little or no access to libraries and the services they provide.

The consequences of funding disparities in American schools are sobering. “The funding gap shows that many low-income minority students are subjected to inferior facilities, less adequate teachers, and an incomparable curriculum to their counterparts” (Wright, 2012). Russo (2011) made the point more poignant when he wrote about Illinois schools, “In both 2002 and 2011, the 10 poorest schools on average spent 30 percent of what the 10 richest schools spent on average to educate each student. . .”

Let’s look more closely at the impact of the funding gap on school facilities. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that do not receive adequate funding are putting students at a disadvantage with:

  1. The most inexperienced and lowest paid teachers,
  2. Limited access to up-to-date textbooks,
  3. Limited access to relevant technologies and new computers, (often the older buildings will not accommodate the necessary electrical power for these advances), and
  4. Poorly furnished science labs.

Often the poorer LEAs cannot focus on:

  1. The latest in safety measures,
  2. Cleanliness of hallways, classrooms, and bathrooms,
  3. Graffiti on walls, lockers, desks, and bathrooms, and
  4. Maintenance issues, such as ceiling and wall disrepair, broken lights, leaky roofs, and chipped paint.

The Education Trust calculated the funding gap per student by poverty, minority background, and by state, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education, for the 2003-2004 school year. The numbers are staggering for many states. In the State of Pennsylvania, the gap between revenues per student in the highest- and lowest poverty districts is $1,001 and it is $454 per student in the highest-and lowest-minority districts. (Hobson, pp. 17-18)

Wiener and Pristoop (2006) took the per-student disparity and multiplied it by 25 students per classroom to illustrate how funding gaps can add up, classroom by classroom and school by school. Using this method, the projected funding difference in the State of New York between two elementary schools of 400 students—one from the highest-poverty quartile and one from the lowest-poverty quartile—would translate to $927,600 in favor of the richer district. In a similar way, the funding gap between two high schools of 1500 students in the State of Illinois would translate to a disparity of $2,886,000 in funding in favor of the district with less poverty.

Funding inequalities are present in federal, state, and local governments. Equalizing this funding is not likely to equalize the education all students receive; however, it is the first step to enhancing the education of our urban youth. This brings us full circle to what we discussed in the beginning of this blog: Funding does affect the achievement gap. Hobson stated it very well:

The benefits of equal funding, a prerequisite for improving quality education, outweighs [sic] the costs; this is especially true when the positive externalities of a value-added education are analyzed. Some of these positive externalities are: a diverse and skilled workforce, citizens who have a superior understanding of and participation in the democratic process, the loss of incentive to commit crimes as more education translates into a higher income capacity and greater conformity to a set of society values.

It seems only fitting that all students attend school in clean, healthy, safe environments; that they have quality teachers; that we rid our American public education system of the plague of disparities in educational quality and financing.

suburbansprawl

Figure 1: The Real Costs of Suburban Sprawl

Printable Blog

References and resources:

Carrasco, A. (2015, March 9). The Real Costs of Suburban Sprawl in One Infographic. Downloaded on May 25, 2015: http://curbed.com/archives/2015/03/09/suburban-vs-urban-infrastructure-costs.php

Hobson, I. The Public Education Funding Dilemma. Downloaded on June 8, 2015: https://www.neumann.edu/academics/divisions/business/journal/Review2013/Hobson.pdf

Russo, A. (2011, November 8). Whatever Happened to School Funding Gaps? This Week in Education. Downloaded on June 6, 2015: http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/11/the-much-ignored-school-funding-gap.html#.VXWh4mRViko

Wiener, R., & Pristoop. E. (2006). How states shortchange the districts that need the most help. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Wright, W. (2013). Proceedings of The National Conference on Undergraduate Research, 2012: The Disparities between Urban and Suburban American Education Systems: A Comparative Analysis Using Social Closure Theory. Ogden, Utah: Weber State University.

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse

Linda is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University, where she teaches graduate level coursework, advises students, and directs student research. Her areas of expertise and research include educational planning, facilities management, and women CEOs. She actively conducts research concerning the effects of the facility on the student and teacher, publishes within her field, and has written or edited numerous books including School Maintenance & Renovation: Administrator Policies, Practices, and Economics and book chapters including a recent chapter, Places Where Children Play, published July, 2014 in Marketing the Green School: Form, Function, and the Future.

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.