Skip to content

Tag: Academic Achievement

Published on

Healthy Schools Network, 2005

Students who attend schools with environmental hazards that impact indoor air quality are more likely to miss class, and therefore lose learning opportunities.

Yet school environmental health and safety remains largely unregulated and there is no state or federal agency in charge of protecting children’s environmental health in schools. This report, School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement, and Attendance: A Data Analysis, looks at information compiled from all public schools in two New York counties, and from a select group of schools from around the state that have reported environmental health and safety problems.

The findings show that, despite the lack of an up-to-date system for collecting data on environmental hazards in schools, it is still possible to correlate existing information with state funding to repair hazards and to show that unhealthy schools rob students of valuable classroom learning time.

View Report

Published on

Al-Enerzi, M.,  2002

This study explored the relationship between school building conditions and the academic achievement of twelfth students in selected public high schools in Kuwait. The population of the study was 56 high schools (28 boys’ schools and 28 girls’ schools) that offered a Sciences and Arts majors. The major research questions in this study were: (a) is there a relationship between overall, cosmetic, and structural conditions and student achievement; (b) does the relationship between building condition and student achievement differ between boys’ and the girls’ schools; and (c) what aspects of physical building components are related to student achievement. The high school principals were given the revised Commonwealth Assessment of Physical Environment (CAPE) to assess building conditions. Student achievement was measured by final examination scores collected from the Information Center at the Ministry of Education.

View Dissertation

Published on

Fisher, Godwin, and Seltman, 2014

A large body of evidence supports the importance of focused attention for encoding and task performance. Yet young children with immature regulation of focused attention are often placed in elementary-school classrooms containing many displays that are not relevant to ongoing instruction. We investigated whether such displays can affect children’s ability to maintain focused attention during instruction and to learn the lesson content. We placed kindergarten children in a laboratory classroom for six introductory science lessons, and we experimentally manipulated the visual environment in the classroom. Children were more distracted by the visual environment, spent more time off task, and demonstrated smaller learning gains when the walls were highly decorated than when the decorations were removed.

View Article

Published on

By Angel Ford

She’s been teaching elementary grades for over 30 years.  At times she’s been in clean, well maintained classrooms with plenty of functional desks.  At times she’s been in classrooms with broken fixtures and a shortage of desks.

This year the poor conditions are just too much.  She has a student that can’t fit into any of the desks and has to sacrifice her own workspace just so he has a place to sit.  It’s December and she’s going on her second month without heat.  She encourages her students to wear gloves in the classroom. 

The lighting is out in one corner of her room so that students struggle to see their books and assignments.  One of her students recently broke a leg and is in a wheelchair.  The classroom is so small that he has to sit in the doorway—creating a safety hazard, while at the same time bringing in the added distraction of hallway noise.

In addition to these struggles, the custodial staff has been reduced and classrooms are only cleaned once a week.  Teachers are expected to take out their classroom trash daily.

The problems reach beyond individual classrooms.  Right now a couple of the stalls in the girls’ bathroom are not working, so bathroom breaks take longer than usual, taking time away from instruction.   The playground has equipment that is cordoned off because of safety concerns, so the children have less encouragement for physical activity while outside for recess.

Sure, there had been other trials increasing over the past few years too, such as administrative turnover and increases in high stakes testing.  Yet it is simply too much to ask of an educator trying to teach children to read and perform mathematic computations, to be in a classroom without appropriate climate control, and to have to keep it clean throughout the week, and then to sacrifice safety, to accommodate an injured child.

She knew a couple of the newer teachers who were looking for positions in other local schools that were in better physical condition, but she was just too tired.  She would retire early.  Her plan had been to work a couple more years, but now she just didn’t feel she would have the energy.  She walked down the hall—picking up wadded papers along the way—and slipped her letter of resignation into her principal’s mailbox.  She would do her best to make it through the next two months.  She loved her second graders and she would miss them, but her bones ached from the cold and she didn’t have the energy to explain to parents why their students had to bundle up to sit in her classroom. 

There were many factors leading to her decision, but the one in the front of her mind was the physical condition of her classroom and the rest of the school. 

The story above is a fictional portrayal of actual situations I have personally witnessed or heard about from educators.  This scene, or ones close it, plays out all too often in school buildings around our nation.  We have a growing problem of teachers leaving the profession, and I propose that one factor is the increasing deterioration of the physical conditions in which they must work and teach.

Evidence shows that teachers in facilities that are in poor physical condition have more negative attitudes about their classrooms than teachers in good facilities (Earthman & Lemasters, 2009).  With over half of the schools in America in need of repairs to be in ‘good’ condition (NCES, 2014), a great number of teachers are working in suboptimal conditions.  Add to this the fact that if the school buildings are in poor shape there is often the companion problem of not having enough resources available, and frustration increases (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008).

Emphasis must be placed on maintaining learning spaces that are in acceptable condition and improving those that are not.  Investing in school buildings is one way to invest in the teachers that use the spaces (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2005).  Providing safe and healthy school environments may encourage educators to stay in their field.

References

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, DC. The Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1107-1123.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 323-335.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Condition of America’s public schools facilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf

Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55-73.

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

Published on

School Planning and Management Article

Studies have shown that natural sunlight helps students feel more engaged, optimistic, and perform better overall. In addition to gymnasiums, daylighting can also be utilized in traditional classroom settings. Solatube’s SolaMaster Series is ideally suited to the classroom, providing clear, natural daylight to increase student engagement and responsiveness.

View Article

Published on

School Planning and Management Webinar

While we may agree that facilities DO impact learning, most institutions can’t afford to replace an entire building in order to bring it up-to-date. With this in mind, the Impact on Learning program was developed, not to focus on whole building design, but to focus on specific solutions that impact the learning environment — furniture designed to allow flexibility in the classroom and accommodate various teaching and learning styles; systems and equipment designed to save energy and protect the environment, while allowing money saved to be reinvested in education; products, materials and equipment that contribute to improved air quality, creating a healthier environment and reducing absenteeism; designs that improve student safety and security; technologies that facilitate teaching and engage today’s students.

View Webinar

 

Published on

By G. Victor Hellman, Jr., Ed.D.

The broader one's understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have. – Steve Jobs

Public school facilities in the United States are at a critical crossroads.  The days of designing and building schools with the traditional double-stacked corridor are fading into history.  Long gone are the single classroom schools where all students assembled for instruction.  Today’s educational vocabulary refers to 21st century learning centers, community schools, school-within-a-school models and virtual schools.  These examples are but a few of the different descriptors used to refer to the facilities that are being built today.  What do these different descriptors mean, and do they appropriately describe facility needs for today’s students?  How do we design facilities to maximize the likelihood that all students will have an equal opportunity to succeed?  It is my contention that a variety of factors should be considered when designing a new learning facility.  Importance should be placed on evidence-based features, and, in addition, careful consideration should be given to the fact that no two children learn in the same way.

The research indicating that school facilities have an effect on achievement and learning outcomes continues to grow.  Likewise, the literature on the deterioration of America’s public schools has expanded.  In an October 2014 report, the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) reported that the amount of deferred maintenance for American public schools is between $271 billion and $542 billion depending on if the division uses a 50- or 25-year amortization of the building life cycle.  The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported in 2014 that 53% of public schools were in need of repairs or renovations in order to bring the facilities up to good condition.  Drilling down in the report reveals that 32% of the facilities need to improve window systems; 31% need to improve plumbing systems; 30% need modernizations in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC); 25% need improvements to roofs, interior finishes, and internal communication systems; and, 21% need to improve their technology infrastructure.  With public school facilities in such need, where is the call to action?  How can we expect children to learn when we do not provide them with a facility that meets the basic standards we expect from our workplace or home?

If the research indicates that our public schools are deteriorating, do we not want to spend our limited dollars in the most appropriate areas to ensure all students have an equal opportunity for success?  In a recent meta-analysis commissioned by the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, researcher Kenneth Tanner concluded some important facts for designers to consider when designing or renovating a school facility.  Highlights of his findings indicate:

  • (t)here is a statistically significant link between natural light in classrooms with views and student achievement. (p.29)
  • (s)afety and security measures … have a statistically significant impact on student outcomes. (p. 31)
  • (t)he design family of quiet places and spaces for reflection has a statistically significant influence on student outcomes. (p. 34)
  • (g)reen spaces … have a statistically positive impact on student outcomes. (p. 35)
  • Ample state-of-the-art technology for teachers and students makes a statistically significant contribution to student achievement. (p. 38)
  • The overall impression of a school facility covers all the design patterns … and influences student outcomes significantly. (p. 43)

Tanner’s meta-analysis provides valuable insight for school administrators and designers as they contemplate designs for new facilities and renovations of existing facilities.  Evidence-based designs help ensure that all students will have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Designers also must strive to accommodate differing learning styles and preferences.  Howard Gardner’s research on multiple intelligences and different learning styles helped educators to understand that not all children learn in the same way.  Other differentiated learning style models exist and explain how to optimize learning.  One such model is the Dunn and Dunn learning style model (Rundle, n.d.).  Dunn and Dunn define learning styles as the way individuals learn new and difficult information.  Their model has 28 different elements across five domains.  Learners strongly or moderately can prefer or not prefer an element, or may be in the middle with their preference to an element.  To illustrate how the different elements impact learning style, let’s look at lighting.  Lighting is an element contained within the environmental domain.  Some students prefer brightly lit areas while others prefer soft, dim lighting.  As a designer for a new learning center, consideration must be given to providing spaces that accommodate both of these learning styles.  Students will tend to gravitate to the amount of lighting consistent with their learning style preference.  Areas of bright natural light as well as areas that are not so bright should be available in order to accommodate the variety of learning styles regarding light. Other environmental elements include sound, temperature, and seating.  Similar variety or flexibility of design should be provided for these elements.

This blog has highlighted the declining condition of America’s public schools as well as provided evidence-based factors that should be considered when designing new facilities or renovations.  More importantly, it has provided insight into the multiple learning styles that today’s education facilities must be able to serve.  As previously stated, it does not matter if we call our facility a 21st century learning center, a community school, or a school-within-a-school.  The facility must have design features for all learning styles and incorporate flexible spaces.  Without these design features, we are not giving all students an equal opportunity to succeed.

 

Resources:

Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS). (2014). Reversing the cycle of deterioration in the nation’s public school buildings. www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/ FacilitiesReport2014.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Condition of America’s public schools facilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf

Rundle, S. (n.d.). Building excellence – effective environments inspire minds to dream more and become more! [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://media.cefpi.org/pacificnorthwest/alaska/AK08BuildingExcellence.pdf

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

 

Dr. G. Victor Hellman, Jr., serves as the Research Project Director for the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC). Victor has more than 31 years of work experience in public schools in Virginia. Prior to joining the EFC, he served as Deputy Superintendent of Operations and Support for a mid-urban school district. In that role, he was responsible for finance, facilities, transportation, student services, and food services.

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

By C. Kenneth Tanner, 2015.

Architectural scholars have called for a complete working alternative to existing ideas about architecture in general.  Since 1997 the School Design & Planning Laboratory has sought a similar alternative for school architecture, including the total educational environment, and worked persistently toward this goal.  Hence, the objective of one primary cluster of SDPL research was to extend innovative ideas of these highly respected scholars to the field of educational architecture.  Findings from the body of research, as discussed in this document, have also been interlocked to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid.  The purpose for effecting this association was to guide how we think about the physical environment’s capacity to motivate individuals, especially students in school environments.

View Study

Published on

 Marchand, Nardi, Reynolds, & Stoil Pamoukov, 2014

The aim of this 2X2 experimental study was to investigate whether the combined environmental factors of light, sound, and temperature in a classroom built environment set to comfortable levels or just outside the comfort zone (OCZ) impacted undergraduate student learning, mood, and perceptions of environmental influence on performance during listening and reading tasks. Results indicated that participants in the OCZ listening condition had lower scores on a comprehension test than those in the normal listening condition, but that no difference was detected between conditions for the reading modality. Students in the OCZ condition reported more negative affect and believed that the sound and temperature of the room had a more negative impact on their performance than those in the normal condition. Participants in the reading conditions were more likely to attribute poor performance to the sound levels in the room than students in the listening condition.
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.