Skip to content

Category: EFC Blogs

Published on

By Angel Ford, February 6, 2015.

Citizens that care about students might come to a consensus that safe and healthy school buildings are an important consideration of education.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, safety is “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss,” and healthy is “good for and conducive to health” (Merriam-Webster).

When including safety and health into an effective definition of school design, it would mean to plan and make decisions about school facilities (both in new construction and existing buildings) to ensure students, teachers, staff, and visitors will be safe from hurt, injury, or loss and will be in an environment that is good for their health.

We wouldn’t knowingly send children into structurally unsafe buildings with crumbling roofs or walls that are falling down; however, some conditions that affect health and safety are less obvious such as poor indoor air quality and/or mold, toxic building materials from years ago or in some instances inadequate climate control

Some schools have elements that are in need of repair and some even have elements that are beyond repair.  This should not be the case.  We need to do better for our students. Parents should be confident that the buildings where their children learn are designed or redesigned in line with best practices for safety and health.

Outside of the initial concerns for safety and health is the idea that these poor conditions can affect student motivation and thus student achievement.

Maslow’s theory of motivation shows it is important to ensure that people are in environments that meet basic human needs, with the physiological (health) needs and the need for safety being foundational (Maslow, 1943).

Meeting these basic needs does not guarantee that students will be motivated to learn; however, any area where educators can remove known obstacles the path to learning is more likely.  When basic needs are not met, “The urge to write poetry… the interest in American history… become of secondary importance.” (Maslow, 1943, p. 3).

If the basic needs of students are not being met, then time and energy must be used tending to those needs before time and energy can be spent on academics.  If students are too cold or too hot, they may not be able to focus (Earthman, 2004; Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2007 ).  If the classroom is not well lighted, is overcrowded or unsafe in anyway, the focus of the students may not be on the lessons (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2007).   If a building even feels unsafe to the students because of broken fixtures, graffiti, etc., the students may be unable to concentrate on the academic goals in front of them.

Looking at the importance of school environments through the lens of Maslow’s theory of motivation, there may be some evidence that without meeting basic needs it could be difficult for students to make an effort to concentrate their attention on developing academic patterns and digesting the academic materials they are being presented.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

maslow

Schools in poor conditions have the potential to affect student achievement through changing students’ moment to moment motivation.  Students shouldn’t be in survival mode.  If they are, we cannot expect them to thrive.

Keeping the work of Maslow in mind, designing and maintaining schools for safety and health must be high priorities.  These are the most basic needs of our students and crucial to their learning environment.

Keep following The Educational Facilities Clearinghouse (efc-staging.edstudies.net) as we expand our information on Safety by Design for schools.  The motivation and academic achievement of students depend on having physical environments conducive to learning.

Printable Blog Post

References

Earthman, G. I.  (2004).  Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD:  American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Uline, C. & Tschannen-Moran, M.  (2007). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement.   Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55-73.

http://www.researchhistory.org/2012/06/16/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/

 

Angel Ford is a research assistant with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved in research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her dissertation topic to be in the area of educational facilities.

Published on

By Linda Lemasters, January 23, 2015

New car, old car?  An antique Mustang or a brand new Camaro?  Which is the safest?  My husband and I had a ’67 Mustang; it was a great little car.  Most of us would admit, however, that the new Camaro—with the latest in airbags, backup cameras, anti-lock brakes and stabilization, blind spot alerts, and many more bells and whistles—is the safest.  The same can be said of new school buildings.  Newer schools are perceived to be the safest.  Nearly all newer schools have systems that assist in controlling access to the building and grounds during school hours, have the most up-to-date camera systems to monitor inside and out of the facility, have the latest HVAC systems that control indoor air quality, have no contaminants in the building materials, have the latest in fire and smoke safety, have the latest in technology for alert systems, are totally handicap accessible, and have “Columbine” locks that permit teachers to secure their rooms from inside the classroom. We could go on and on.

The most disheartening in all of this:  all of our children cannot go to school in new buildings.  Not all can go to schools that have been remodeled or retrofitted.  What can be done to make your older school safe with little or no expense?  Please note, this list is not all inclusive, but all schools can have:

  • Involvement of everyone in the safety planning processes: school board, employees, students, parents, media, service groups and community organizations, law enforcement, and business leaders
  • Disaster, lock-down, and evacuation plans—and practice them
  • Signage that is easily seen and understood
  • A school safety advisory group
  • Safety workshops that are a part of professional development activities
  • Conflict resolution procedure and mediation plans
  • A school beautification plan and other activities that build a sense of pride
  • All exterior doors locked and someone greeting at the main entrance with a sign-in/sign-out procedure and I.D. badges
  • A parent visitation pick-up procedure to include early dismissals
  • A way to notify parents of student absences
  • De-cluttered classrooms and hallways
  • Risk management and safety assessments that are conducted regularly
  • A system, working with law enforcement, to fingerprint all young children
  • Provisions to work with local media to share safety information and to provide correct and helpful information during crisis
  • Access to free safety, health, and disaster information on the state and federal websites
  • A systemic, mandatory, district-wide incident reporting system

As you read, you most likely are thinking of a half-dozen more ideas, which I have not listed.  The idea is, however, a school or a local school agency (LEA) does not need to use the excuse of “no money” to make the places where our children learn more safe.  In addition, schools with adequate funding need to make sure they pay attention to some of these suggestions.  School disasters, safety problems, unhealthy schools are not simply relegated to poorer LEAs.

In summary, schools become safer when we “think safety” all of the time and not get upset when we have to get a badge in the school office to visit our child’s classroom or when we are asked to park in a particular area to provide safe ingress and egress of the school site.  School safety is not just the job of the administration and teachers; it is the community’s job.  There are many things we all can do that cost little or nothing to make the places where children learn safe.

Watch the blog site in a few weeks. The topic will be safety by design: new construction, retrofits, and remodeling.   Remember the first part of our blog—new car, old car?  Do we buy a new Camaro, or retrofit and remodel the antique Mustang to improve its safety?

View Printable PDF

References and resources:

http://rems.ed.gov/

http://www.dhs.gov/school-safety

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/designing-safe-facilities

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/safe-learning-environments

http://www.efc.gwu.edu//

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/school.htm

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/index.aspx

http://www.ncpc.org/cms-upload/ncpc/File/BSSToolkit_Complete.pdf

http://www.pta.org/safetytoolkit

http://www.schoolsafety.us/

http://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/build-safe-environment/

http://www.wikihow.com/Provide-a-Safe-Environment-at-Preschool

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.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 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.

Published on

By Angel Ford, November 24, 2014.

Educators are increasingly encouraged to use effective pedagogies for millennials.  This is not a bad thing in and of itself; however, many of the techniques are difficult at best in traditional classrooms with rows of desks and little space to move around.  If teachers are being asked to change the way they teach, it is imperative that the physical environment is adapted to empower them to use to do so effectively.

Teachers should not be expected to perform 21st century pedagogy in 20th century or even 19th century classrooms, which have not been adapted or renovated for updated pedagogy.  Unfortunately this occurs often.

Classrooms that are overcrowded with students or that are used to store copious amounts of curriculum or resources are not conducive to student movement and the flexibility that will increase teaching options.  Each student should have their own desk or place at a table, and ample space to move around for differing activities.

In order to increase the space that each student has, there are a number of solutions, including building bigger classrooms or reducing the number of students in current classrooms.  When these first two suggestions may not be viable options, the classroom space can be increased by simply not allowing classrooms to be used for storage.  Only the items needed for the current instruction should be in the classroom (Duncanson, 2014).  Clutter is working against academic achievement and should be eliminated (Duncanson, 2014).

In addition to creating more space, it is important to look at how to use the space effectively for the new pedagogies that are being encouraged.  One type of learning that has evidence of working well with millennials is team-based learning.  Millennials are relational and enjoy working in teams (Elmore, 2010).  In order for teachers to encourage team oriented projects, students need places conducive to group work.  Traditional classrooms can at times be rearranged for these activities; however, this is not the optimal solution.

Classrooms with more open space create opportunities for students to physically move around and form groups to work together.  This is just one of many reasons that open floor space has been shown to increase academic achievement scores (Duncanson, 2014).

Millennials also learn well through project based learning and active learning (Pearlman, 2010).   These types of learning call for space that will allow for different learning centers for the various aspects of project based learning and active learning.   Just as with team learning, in order to be able to encourage project based learning, teachers will need to be able to provide places for the students to work on projects and to move freely from one stage to the next.

“Open space changes classroom dynamics.” (Duncanson, 2014, p. 29).  Whatever can be done to open up classroom space to increase flexibility and allow more movement could be beneficial to academic learning.

As stated earlier, these are only a few of the types of learning that need to be considered when designing learning spaces for current and future learners.  One thing that is certain is that by continuing education in traditional classroom settings without changing the learning environment, the environment is being allowed to “dictate” what pedagogy the teacher must use. (Pearlman, 2010).

If teaching with pedagogy that calls for classroom flexibility and student movement is what is expected from our current educators, then it is imperative to examine and adjust the physical classrooms to make such 21st century teaching successful.

Printable Version of Blog Post

References

Duncanson E. (2014). Lasting effects of creating classroom space: A study of teacher behavior. The Journal of the International Society for Educational Planning, 21(3), 29-40.

Elmore, T. (2010). Generation iY: our last chance to save their future. Atlanta, GA: Poet Gardener.

Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 116-147.

Angel Ford is a research assistant with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her intended dissertation topic to be in the area of educational facilities.

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters, November 11, 2014.

In October 1990, the then Senator Joe Biden introduced The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA)--originally known as the Crime Control Act of 1990--and in November of the same year George H. W. Bush signed it into law.  The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a federal law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that a reasonable person knows is a school.  The original law has had a rocky journey through the courts, and the current version has yet to be tested in the United States Supreme Court.  Most likely all of us have seen the signs as we enter a public school that we are entering a gun-free zone.  Reasonable people understand exactly what this means.

Our hearts were broken once more when a few weeks ago a young high school student entered his school in Marysville, Oregon, just 30 miles north of Seattle and took his friends’ lives and his own.  Although I have a doctoral student conducting research in the area of school violence, I decided to research the topic myself.  Please let me assure you, there is no lack of information.  I sadly discovered a history in the U.S. that dates back to the 1700s.  In the late 1980s and early 90s, however, the statistics showed a sharp increase in the number of school shootings—perhaps the impetus for VP Biden’s GFSZA law.  Later in the 1990s through 2010 the rates of school violence have decreased (Neuman, 2012); school has been noted as the safest place students can be.  I state this very hesitantly, as it brings no comfort to the parents, who have lost children, and others, who have lost loved ones.

Schools try to put their sense of community back together after such a tragedy, and communities often express what Marysville did after the shooting, we “will be forever changed as a result of the senseless and tragic incident that took place on the morning of October 24 and know that healing will not happen overnight.  We remain committed to taking this journey together, step by step, holding up the families most impacted and helping our communities heal” (CBS News, 2014).

Commentators only express aloud what we all are thinking, “Why?”

  • Some speak of the irresistible stage; others talk of the media frenzy and publicity as motivating factors.
  • It seems that some shooters want to get back at those who have hurt them, picked on them, and bullied them.
  • Research has shown that some shooters are themselves victims of violence at home.
  • Other perpetrators, sadly, may have neglected mental problems (Robertz, 2007).

While the list could be endless, one fact stands out.  There does not seem to be an understanding of the value of life.  Perhaps the better question is “What can we do to emphasize the value of life itself?”

While we at the EFC will continue to collect and disseminate educational research on the school facility and best practices concerning behavioral safety from intruders to avoid violent acts, we also encourage community discussions on what can be done to exhibit and emphasize a greater value on human life.   We enlist you to do the same.  Let’s consider and act on environmental influences, cyber abuse, family environments, and community environments.  Enlist our parents, students, businesses, industries, and local governments, anyone we can find, who will listen.  The life of each child is important.  Call out moviemakers, ask our entertainers to remember they are role models, encourage our athletes, involve our community activists; our children’s lives are important; it will take more that just our schools to have an impact on this problem.

We have had the GFSZA, or some form of it, for 34 years.  Simply telling someone not to bring a gun on school property is not enough.  The former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, stated, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”  I would welcome a discussion on how you, the reader, are going to make a difference.  Can we find ways to model the respect for life to our children?

Printable Version of Blog Post

References:

CBS News. 2014, November 8.  Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-school-shooting-victim-andrew-fryberg-dies-in-seattle/

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

Neuman, S.  (2012, March 16). Violence in Schools:  How Big A Problem Is It?  NPR News.  Retrieved November 11, 2014 from http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148758783/violence-in-schools-how-big-a-problem-is-it

Robertz, F. J. (2007, July 30).  Deadly Dreams:  What Motivates School Shootings?   Scientific American,  Retrieved November 11, 2014 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-dreams/

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.

Published on

By Angel Ford, October 30, 2014.

Imagine you are a student walking into a building that you are forced to go to everyday to sit in a humid classroom that smells bad because the ceiling leaks and the air conditioning unit is not functional, with desks crammed so closely together that you feel the body heat of the person sitting next to you.  Imagine that your teacher is standing at the front of the room for an hour or more droning on, at times loudly because she is speaking over hallway noises as classroom doors are left open to increase airflow.

The teacher is telling you about new science innovations and advanced devices that are changing the world in which we live.  You hear bits and pieces, but are not making sense of what she is saying.  You would rather be at home surfing the Internet for the tablet and cell phone you want for Christmas.  You would rather be just about anywhere.

For a moment now, switch places and imagine you are the teacher in this same classroom and your desire is to get the students excited about technology; to tell them about the latest and greatest devices.  You know that many of these students have the devices you are teaching them about, some even have them in their pockets right now.  Last night you read an article about the importance of technology integration for your millennial students.  You learned that teachers in a different school in your same city are in a new building where the students don’t just hear about technology, they experience it through access to computers, tablets, the most updated software, and even a new 3D printer.

You feel bad for your students, but you don’t know what to do. Just adding the technology to this classroom would not help.  There is no room for computers and with the leaks in the ceiling how could you ensure electronics wouldn’t be damaged anyway?   A cough from one of your asthmatic students pulls you out of your internal pity party and you take a deep breath and go on with your lesson plans.  Frustrated and Defeated.

This may seem like an extreme case, but it may not be too far off for certain students and teachers.

With all the evidence about the importance of the physical learning environment, it is critical to consider the perspectives of those that are affected every day with substandard educational facilities and, yet, are still expected to learn or to teach.  Students in such buildings may dislike school and not be excited about learning.  Teachers in such schools may be frustrated with feeling they cannot provide engaging lessons for their 21st century learners.

There may not be easy solutions to fix the many schools in our nation that need fixing, but the evidence shows that the physical buildings do affect learning (Earthman & Lemasters, 2011) and that an overwhelming number of schools in our nation need facility improvements (“PK-12 Public School,” 2011).

Public education in America is available to all students; however, the equity of education facilities is in question (Uline, Wolsey, Tschannen-Moran, & Lin, 2010).   “A student may assume the faculty and staff of a poorly maintained building will accept or expect a lower standard of behavior and a lesser effort in academic achievement.” (Cash, 1993, p. 1).   These may not be the expectations; however, the perception of students becomes the reality in which they make decisions about their effort, achievement, and behavior.  The frustration caused by this perception affects both teachers and administrators.  This could directly cause educators to leave substandard schools at a higher rate and add increases in educator turnover to poor facilities.

In order to empower teachers to provide 21st century learning, the physical environments need to be seen as part of the plan to create school equality.  Some schools need to be completely rebuilt; some need thorough renovations, and others could benefit from quick, easy, and inexpensive improvements.  The Education Facilities Clearinghouse provides research based technical assistance to school administrators and school facility managers, who are interested in improving their facilities to meet the needs of their students.

Printable Version of Blog Post

References

Cash, C. (1993). Building Condition and Student Achievement and Behavior.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2011). The influence of school building conditions on students and teachers: A theory-based research program (1993-2011). The ACEF Journal, 1(1), 15-36.

PK-12 Public School Facility Infrastructure Fact Sheet.  21st Century School Fund (February, 2011).

Uline, C. L., Wolsey, T. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Lin, C. D. (2010). Improving the physical and social environment of school: A question of equity. Journal of school leadership, 20(5), 597-632.

Angel Ford is a research assistant with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her intended dissertation topic to be in the area of educational facilities.

Published on

By Helen Janc Malone & Reuben Jacobson, September 8, 2014.

School buildings communicate important messages to our children, their families, the community, and the educators and personnel that work there. A school’s physical appearance speaks to people about the value our society places on education and on the role of the school in the community. Too often, our urban school facilities send the wrong messages.

However, in communities with scarce resources, school facilities can play a particularly vital role. We call them community schools. They:

  • create a safe and supportive school culture and a climate for learning in the school and community;
  • develop engaging learning experiences inside and outside the classroom that enable students to prepare for college, career, and life;
  • ensure that young people have the opportunities and supports that every family seeks for their children—mentoring, after school and summer activities, arts and cultural events, health and mental health services, nutritious meals, and more;
  • engage families and communities in problem-solving of pressing community issues; and
  • build social capital—the networks and relationships so critical to helping young people develop the ‘agency’ they need to face life’s challenges and become productive workers and citizens.

Community schools bring the assets of the community into the school facility. Depending on the local context, community schools might house a library, a career center, doctors, dentists, social services, recreational spaces, or after school and weekend programs. In a community school, families, educators, and communities are equal decision-makers. When the design of school space is built on community input, and includes services and activities that young people, families, and communities need, the community school becomes a vibrant resource for all.

There is a long history of seeing school buildings as centers of communities. In the early 1900s John Dewey, the famous Progressive educator, wrote about schools as social centers. He envisioned schools as a gathering place for people to learn from one another and throughout their lives regardless of age. That ideal continues today and is manifested best when school buildings become community schools.

As Secretary Arne Duncan noted: "I'd like to see public schools open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, year-round, offering not just mentoring and tutoring programs but art, chess, family literacy nights, debate teams, and GED and ESL programs for parents. It doesn't have to be that expensive to keep schools open longer. In every school you have classrooms, computer labs, libraries, and gyms. Rent the school out for free from 3:00 to 9:00 PM to great non-profit partners like the YMCA's, the Boys and Girls Club, college-readiness programs, and other enrichment activities. It is a tremendous waste of resources that schools aren't doing more to serve as one-stop community centers."

Cincinnati Community Learning Centers

Many school districts and communities are using the school building to transform communities. Cincinnati’s community schools, called Community Learning Centers (CLCs), illustrate how school and community leaders leveraged new funding for school construction to engage the community and to promote fairness and opportunity.

In 1999, Cincinnati Public Schools Facility Master Plan invested $1 billion to rebuild its public schools and turn them into community hubs, with resources and opportunities for all. Central to the district’s effort was to engage each neighborhood in a conversation about what they wanted their schools to look like. The conversation led to schools co-located community partners that promote academic excellence and provide recreational, educational, social, health, civic, and cultural opportunities for students, their families, and the community. And in several cases schools became K-12 facilities in response to a community demand.

How did this happen? Each school community decided which opportunities and supports they wanted based on local needs and assets. For example, when a community identified access to health care as a critical need, the CLC was designed to house a health clinic. When another community needed high quality early childhood opportunities, planners incorporated space for an early childhood center.

What results do we see from Cincinnati’s facilities plan and community engagement? The school board has made all schools CLCs, Cincinnati students have demonstrated significant academic improvement, neighborhoods are being revitalized and more families are moving back to the city. And there are myriad of strong partnerships with community groups, business, and others that are all working inside school buildings to create places were all children and families succeed.

An emerging example of a substantial investment in school facilities come from Baltimore. The State of Maryland has recently passed a $1 billion facilities plan to revitalize Baltimore’s public school buildings. As Michael Sarbanes, former Baltimore City Schools’ Executive Director of Engagement, stated, “…this work is based on the belief that schools are an anchor in the community and the schools should be an asset for community life where they’re located.”

School Facility as a Community School

So what are school facilities like around the country and what vision can we create for better school facilities that encourage better learning? A recent report, the Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 2012 –13, states that over half of our public schools require “repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put the school’s onsite buildings in good overall condition.” The report estimates that it will require $197 billion, or $4.5 million per school to revitalize our schools.

Policymakers responsible for funding repairs to existing buildings or for funding new facilities should keep two things in mind:

  1. Robust citizen participation in the planning process is essential to designing schools that are deeply rooted in community and responsive to its needs;
  2. The way we design schools is a key factor in mobilizing the entire community to support young people.

Using the school facility as a community school is the way to achieve our ideals of the school as a social center, a place that values learning at all ages, and that creates equitable opportunities for all.

PDF Version

Dr. Helen Janc Malone
Director of Institutional Advancement
National Director, Education Policy Fellowship Program

Reuben Jacobson
Senior Associate for Research and Strategy, Coalition for Community Schools

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters

August 22, 2014. 

Scholars have researched the question for nearly a century:  Do facilities affect student outcomes and teacher instruction?  To respond to that question, the next three Bricks and Mortar BLOGS will address (a) the importance of school facilities for our nation, (b) best practices in school facilities, and (c) the impact of school facilities on the learner.  Knowledge of the three is intricately related.

We all know where the schools in our community are; most of us give little thought as we drive by them every day as to the size of their acreage, the amount of square feet under roof, the incredible amount of money to make the fields and buildings available to students, as well as community activities.  Are there any other governmental functions, other than schools, that require such a huge expanse of real estate?

A few years ago the 21st Century School Fund shared a fact sheet with general composite information about school facility infrastructure (2011).  Although I have worked with school facilities for over two decades, I had no idea of the magnitude of our national school resources.  The facts are:  there are nearly 100,000 preK-12 public schools, which over 55 million school-age children attend, and over 6.6 billion gross square footage of building space and 1 million acres of site area.  The public investment is well worth discussion by educators.  If we add this information to a more recent survey from the United States Department of Education via the National Center for Education Statistics (2014) on facilities, the facts are more startling.  Of the 1800 schools surveyed, billions of dollars are needed for renovations and repairs, averaging $4.5 million per school.  Even with only a small portion of our total 100,000 public schools having the same needs, there is a crisis in the public schools our children attend.

Another area we often overlook is the funding needed for operating our school buildings.  Utilities alone cost localities nearly $9.5 billion dollars a year—fluctuating with the weather.  Knowing that these costs fall totally to the localities, along with the majority of other upkeep expenses in most states, should make us attentive to the scope of the influence of facilities on our localities and states.  In addition, personnel for schools take 60-80% of local budgets.

What are the implications for our students and teachers—and for communities?   Most frequently, the needed maintenance, retrofits and renovations entail HVAC, replacing ineffective windows and doors, upgrading classroom lighting, and replacing leaking roofs.  We all need fresh air, especially children, yet many of the old HVAC systems do not provide the proper ventilation; some do not maintain a thermal environment to enable students to focus on their work; and/or, the health related problems with respiratory illnesses keep children and teachers home from school.  Poor classroom lighting has its on own effects on children’s eyes, health, and mood.  Leaky roofs can exacerbate mold, mildew, and destroy computers, furniture, and flooring.  Even with such an incomplete list, we can exhibit and the research supports how needed maintenance affects safety, health, capital resource damage, and budgets.  Nearly all of these retrofits and renovations can save energy and thus money—money that can be used for instruction.

Part of the mission of the Education Facilities Clearinghouse is to call to the attention of educators and policy makers the magnitude of importance of  school facilities on our localities and states.  Our school buildings and grounds and their impact on all of us are multi-dimensional and more important than most people realize.

References:

Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 2012-13.  U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Report 2014-022 (March 2014).

PK-12 Public School Facility Infrastructure Fact Sheet.  21st Century School Fund (February, 2011).

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.

Printable Version of The Importance of School Facilities

By Dr. Linda Lemasters, June 30, 2014. There is never a week that passes that I don’t see beautiful, well built, and inviting schools. Some are simply pictures; some are along the roads I travel. At the same time, there is rarely a week that I don’t see, read about, drive by schools that are less than inviting and are unappealing. It is always said that it does not matter where children learn: in a one-room schoolhouse, out of doors, rooms with peeling paint, or places that are not clean and have musty smells. Sometimes I believe this is a “cop out.” The person making those comments not only has not realized the importance of the places where children learn; but also never has visited any of the devastating facilities.
Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters, June 30, 2014.

There is never a week that passes that I don’t see beautiful, well built, and inviting schools. Some are simply pictures; some are along the roads I travel. At the same time, there is rarely a week that I don’t see, read about, drive by schools that are less than inviting and are unappealing. It is always said that it does not matter where children learn: in a one-room schoolhouse, out of doors, rooms with peeling paint, or places that are not clean and have musty smells. Sometimes I believe this is a “cop out.” The person making those comments not only has not realized the importance of the places where children learn; but also never has visited any of the devastating facilities.

My first thoughts always turn to where the unattended buildings are located. Is this the place the mayor’s children go to school? Do children in the gated communities . . . in beautifully developed suburbs feed into these schools? The geographic area is more likely to be rural, inner city, or on the other side of the railroad tracks. The bigger question, however, is there a difference in student achievement in the very different school settings? 

When discussing educational reform, we rarely have such conversations without the phrase “achievement gap” being mentioned. Over all we have not succeeded as a society in eradicating the gap and along the way, have failed taxpayers and students. Since 2002, tax-payers have funded $4.4 billion in federal support of state developed achievement testing for grades three through eighth (Levine & Levine, 2013). Further, the Brookings Institute estimates states have funded $1.7 billion annually on achievement testing (Chingos, 2012). Taxpayers, also, fund approximately $129.6 million a year on NAEP for the Nation’s Report Card as a means to crosscheck state achievement testing. In return for funding, taxpayers have gotten little in return (Levine & Levine, 2013). For example, the recent November 7, 2013 NAEP Report, considered the “gold standard” in test score reporting, once again demonstrated there is a “lack of progress closing the racial and ethnic disparities in the test results” (NAEP, 2013; Ravitch, 2010, p. 2). Since the last testing cycle of NAEP in 2011, eighth grade math scores have risen one point and reading has risen eight points (NAEP, 2013). For black eighth graders math scores did not change significantly, while Hispanic scores rose two points. In reading, black scores rose two points, while Hispanic scores rose three points.

According to Kober (2001), there are no simplistic explanations for the differences in racial and ethnic performances, and there is inadequate information on factors that may affect the gap. To some the roots of the gap are beyond the reach of educators and reside in economic and social challenges that minority students face (Evans, 2005). To others education is a simple production function input output relationship, yet the goal of universal outcome criteria treats the symptom not the problem (Smillov, 2013). Improving reading and math test scores only treats “meager symptoms of a very complex problem” in a limited way and requires a holistic approach (Francis, 2013).

With the complicated issues surrounding the achievement gap, what are some facts that we do know? While the research findings are mixed, Bowers and Urick (2011) said, 

. . . if we take the mediated effects approach, it may be that actual facility quality, be it structural or maintenance, directly effects educator’s perceptions of their facilities that then influences the overall academic and motivational climate of the school, which then influences student achievement up or down. (p. 1)

So the next time you hear the term “achievement gap,” ask yourself where do these children go to school. Is their school in an environment that appears safe, warm, and inviting? Is it clean inside with air conditioning and proper furniture, free from respiratory hazards, and capable of supporting effective technology? While the gap is complicated, perhaps systemic in nature, and cannot be fixed easily, we have the capacity and ability to improve the places where students learn and teachers teach. Thus, the mission of the Education Facilities Clearinghouse: Improving the places where children learn.

This is our first Bricks and Mortar Blog. We invite you to comment and watch for the next column. We also will invite guests to join us; be sure to check in to see who they are. The EFC (efc-staging.edstudies.net) invites you to join us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

References:

Bowers, A. J., & Urick, A. (2011) Does High School Facility Quality Affect Student Achievement? A 2-Level Hierarchical Lin-ear Model. Journal of Education Finance, 37(1), 72-94.http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_education_finance/v037/37.1.bowers.html

Chingos, M. (2012). Strength in numbers state spending on K-12 assessment systems Brown Center on education policy as Brookings (pp. 1-41). Brookings Institute: Brookings Institute.

Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 582-589.

France, J. (2013). Low test scores are the symptom, not the disease. Retrieved fromhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/low-test-scores-are-symptom-not-%E2%80%9C-disease%E2%80%9D

Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing closing the achievement gap (pp. 1-47). Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Levine, M., & Levin, A. (2013). Education reform movement has been a costly failure, The Buffalo News.

NAEP (2013). The Nation's Report Card. 2013 Math and Reading. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system how testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Perseus.

Smillov, M. (2013). Common Core: Reinforcing failure. American Thinker. Retrieved fromhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/common_core_reinforcing_failure.html

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse (Liz Johnson, GWU EdD student contributed to the research) 

Linda is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University, where she directs the educational administration and policy studies program, 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, to be published July, 2014 in Marketing the Green School: Form, Function, and the Future.

Printable Version of Bricks and Mortar

 

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.