THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES ON THE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT

by

Bert Vandiver

Barry Persky, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

Douglas DeWitt, PhD, Committee Member

Joshua Fischer, PhD, Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, EdD, Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

January 2011

Bert Vandiver, 2011

Abstract

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to examine the impact of the quality of

facilities on the educational environment in high schools located in northeast Texas. The

intent of this research study was to determine the relationship between school facilities

and the school-learning environment. This study was a mixed method research that used

questionnaires and interviews to identify and appraise school facilities and learning

environment. The problem was that school facilities were negatively impacting student

learning and faculty, and administrators were not properly supporting stronger facility

management. The poor condition of some schools raised serious concerns about teacher

and student safety. Educators must understand and find ways to help increase student

performance. This study used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. The independent

z-test was conducted to determine the difference in student performance before vs. after

the new facility. The results of the data analysis findings indicated that quality and

educational adequacy of educational facilities were statistically significantly associated

with student performance and teacher turnover rate showing a statistical change also.

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and son who have helped me and put up

with me through this entire process. I know my mother is smiling in heaven.

iv

Acknowledgments

I am grateful first, for the support and endorsement of my university and

dissertation committee. Without their endorsement and support, I would not have had the

opportunity to pursue this research project. I thank Dr. Barry Persky, who was my

dissertation chair and mentor, Dr. Douglas DeWitt, and Dr. Joshua Fischer, for serving on

my dissertation committee and for providing insight so that I could improve upon the

design of the project and the composition of my dissertation. Dr. DeWitt also served as

my written comp mentor and was able to help me through that phase of the process. Dr.

Phil Corkill, who advised me and guided me through this entire process, was always there

when I needed some help and answers, and the university for giving me a second chance

when I was at a very critical point in this process.

Of the people employed in Texas public education, I thank the district

superintendent, who allowed participation and the district personnel who completed the

survey. Without such permission and participation, the project would never have moved

beyond its proposal stage. I hope they will find my dissertation useful. And finally, I

would like to acknowledge the people and company that allowed me to use the research

survey materials that gave me the results for this project.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 6

Research Questions 7

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 10

Assumptions 11

Limitations 12

Nature of the Study 12

Theoretical Framework 14

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Introduction 19

Theoretical Perspectives of Student Achievement and School Facilities 19

Theory of Teacher Attrition and Teacher Retention 21

Theoretical Perspectives of School Climate and the Learning Environment 22

vi

History of School Facilities 23

Condition of Americas Schools 25

School Facilities and Student Performance and Achievement 35

School Facilities and School Climate and School Culture 45

School Facilities and Teacher Retention and Teacher Turnover 47

Learning Environment and School Building Design 54

Characteristics of High Performing Schools 55

Recent Studies 57

Summary 60

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 62

Research Questions 62

Methodology 63

Research Design and Procedures 64

Population and Sampling Procedures 68

Instrumentation 68

Validity and Reliability 73

Data Collection Procedures 75

Data Analysis Procedures 77

Ethical Considerations 79

Summary 80

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 82

Introduction 82

Demographic Description 83

vii

Data Analysis 89

Results 90

Summary 112

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114

Introduction 114

Summary of the Study 114

Summary of Findings and Conclusions 117

Recommendations 120

Implications 127

REFERENCES 127

APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 146

APPENDIX B. TOTAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 148

APPENDIX C. ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 160

APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 162

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Gender Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 84

Table 2. Racial Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 84

Table 3. Age Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 85

Table 4. Educational Attainment of Teachers in the Research Sample 85

Table 5. Teaching Experience of Teachers in the Research Sample 86

Table 6. Number of Years at Current School for Teachers in the Research Sample 86

Table 7. Primary Teaching Position for Teachers in the Research Sample 87

Table 8. Primary Area of Certification of the Teachers in the Research Sample 88

Table 9. Number of Principals and Number of Years under Current Principal 88

Table 10. Mean Total Learning Environment Assessment Scores 92

Table 11. Age of Facility 92

Table 12. Years Last Renovation of the Facility 93

Table 13. Extent of Involvement of School Instructional Personnel in Renovation 93

Table 14. Degree Instructional Philosophy is Integrated into the Learning Environment 94

Table 15. Portable Buildings Utilized as Classrooms on Campus 94

Table 16. Mean Student Performance by Subject Area: Before and After New Facility 95

Table 17. Student Achievement Comparison z-Test Results 97

Table 18. Mean Teacher Turnover Rate: Before and After New Facility 98

Table 19. Teacher Turnover Rate Comparison z-Test Results 99

Table 20. Mean Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Scores 100

Table 21. Mean, Median, and Mode for Supportive Principal Items 102

ix

Table 22. Mean, Median, and Mode for Directive Principal Items 104

Table 23. Mean, Median, and Mode for Engaged Teacher Items 106

Table 24. Mean, Median, and Mode for Frustrated Teacher Items 108

Table 25. Mean, Median, and Mode for Intimate Teacher Items 110

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of Students Passing 96

Figure 2. Percentage of Teacher Turnover 98

Figure 3. Histogram for Supportive Principal Dimension 101

Figure 4. Histogram for Directive Principal Dimension 103

Figure 5. Histogram for Engaged Teacher Dimension 106

Figure 6. Histogram for Frustrated Teacher Dimension 107

Figure 7. Histogram for Intimate Teacher Dimension 109

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

For centuries, the subject of school facilities had received considerable attention

from public as well as educators. Educators were faced today with a growing challenge of

maintaining the nations education facilities, as Americas school buildings age. At the

same time, educators were held accountable for student achievement (School Facilities

Maintenance Task Force, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a

legislative Act, required educators in public schools to be accountable for improving and

closing the achievement gaps in student academic performance.

The improvement of our public schools could be costly. McGowen (2007) reported

that the most single expense and most enduring transaction made by school officials were

school facilities. Kerr (2003) estimated that to meet the national need for new or renovated

academic space would cost more than $127 billion. According to Blair and Pollard (1998),

the evaluation of school facilities, along with reform movements, allowed educators and

planners to align academic initiatives with tangible factors of the school buildings.

Since the passage of NCLB and the requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress, there

was a call nationwide for school systems to be accountable (Bullock, 2007). The United

States General Accounting Office ([GAO], 1996) and Schneider (2002) noted that the

average age of our schools was close to fifty years old. Many of the nations schools had

documented widespread physical deficiencies that have an affect on teaching and learning

(Hines, 1996; Corocoran, Walker, & White, 1998; Flannery, 2001; Schneider, 2002;

Schneider, 2003a). According to Building Educational Success Together ([BEST], 2005), it

2

was the responsibility of educators in every state to ensure that every child had access to a

quality education in school facilities that provide an educational setting that was suited for

teaching and learning. Implementing policies that resulted in high quality, high-performing,

well-designed and maintained school facilities had a direct and indirect impact on the

teaching and learning process (BEST, 2005). Effective facilities management contributed to

the success of every student in every school in the United States (BEST, 2005).

There was a growing research literature that there is a relationship between student

achievement and the conditions of school buildings (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2004a;

Earthman, 2002; Lemasters, 1997; Lewis, 2000; Filardo, 2008 Hunter, 2006; Jago &

Tanner, 1999; Schneider, 2003b). Hale (2002) found that students in classrooms with large

windows, natural lighting, and well-designed skylights performed 19 to 26% better than

their peers in classrooms without these features. Hunter found that the environmental

conditions in schools, which included the inoperative heating system, inadequate

ventilation, and poor lighting, affected the health and learning as well as the morale of

students and the staff. Olson and Kellum (2003) found sustainable schools and the good

qualities of lighting, site planning, indoor air quality, acoustics, healthy building materials,

and the use of renewable energy benefited student achievement. Bullock (2007) found that

students performed better in schools that were new or renovated recently than in older

schools. The overall building condition, the age of the building, and the windows in the

instructional areas were positively related to student achievement (Bullock, 2007).

The key to the economic prosperity of our communities and nation was our public

schools (Filardo, 2008). Filardo noted that responsible management and investment in our

school buildings paid three timesfor skilled jobs in local communities, in the quality that

3

healthy, safe, and educationally appropriate buildings created for students as well as

teachers, and in the benefits that quality education reaped for generations to come.

Gertel, McCarty, and Schoff (2004) indicated areas that had not received a great deal

of attention such a administration buildings and teachers classrooms for daily instruction.

Therefore, it was important for school facilities to provide an appropriate environment for

learning. The challenge for educators was to renovate or design buildings that provided the

appropriate infrastructure for new learning approaches, mode of instruction, as well as tools

for technology that improved teaching and learning (Dewees, 1999).

Background of the Study

Cash (1993) studied the relationship between classroom conditions and the school

building and student achievement in rural schools of Virginia. The study examined the

relationship between student achievement and the overall, structural, and cosmetic building

conditions. School administrators must be concerned with the structural and cosmetic

conditions of school facilities as well as student achievement. The combination of existing

school facilities, leadership decisions, and the financial ability of the local school districts

accounted for the condition of the buildings in which students received instruction on a daily

basis (Bullock, 2007; Cash, 1993).

The enactment on NCLB mandated accountability for academic achievement for

all students in every state, school district, and school. Many school districts were struggling

to meet the requirements of NCLB. NCLB stipulated that every school must have highly

qualified teachers in the classroom, teachers assistants with two years of college or

equivalent, and a curriculum that allowed the students to be proficient on all standardized

4

tests. While the school districts and schools were trying to meet the requirements of NCLB,

there was an important element of student achievement that educators had overlooked, the

physical school facility. Research literature indicated that student achievement depended

upon the physical school facility, its age, the design, and the condition of the school

(Broome, 2003; Hughes, 2005; Lyons, 2001).

Lyons (2001) contended that learning was a complex activity that supremely tested

students motivation and physical conditions. Teaching resources, teachers skill, and

curriculum played a vital role in a childs education (Lyons, 2001). Educators must realize

that there were many elements that influenced the condition of the school facility. These

elements could range from educational leadership to community involvement. There was no

one element that operated in isolation (Lyons, 2001). Educators needed to be informed

about the conditions of their school facilities as well as appreciate the differences that

facilities could make in helping to educate their children.

Schneider (2002) noted that most of the school buildings were about fifty years old.

Faced with an aging building stock and growing, shifting student enrollments, states and

communities were working hard to build and modernize K-12 facilities. In todays society,

many of our schools faced many challenges of out-of-date design, deteriorating conditions,

and changing utilization pressures (overcrowding and declining enrollments; Filardo, 2008)

These deficiencies impaired the quality of teaching and learning that contributed to health

and safety problems for staff and students. Building design had been associated with teacher

motivation and student achievement (Filardo, 2008).

5

Statement of the Problem

The problem was that school facilities were negatively impacting student learning

and faculty, and administrators were not properly supporting stronger facility management.

According to the United States Department of Education ([USDE], 1999), research studies

had been consistent in describing poor conditions of public schools and raising concerns

about the effects of school facilities on teaching as well as learning. The poor condition of

some schools raised serious concerns about teacher and student safety (USDE). When

providing quality equitable and efficient education for students, lawmakers and educators

must take in consideration of the role school facilities had played in the educational and

learning environment (USDE). Educators must understand and find ways to help increase

student performance. Therefore, educators must understand the relationship that existed

between learning and school facilities.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to examine the impact of the quality

of facilities on the educational environment in high schools located in northeast Texas. The

intent of this research study was to determine the relationship between school facilities and

the school-learning environment. The researcher identified what aspects of school facility

design that had the greatest potential to impact student learning. The findings of this

research study had implications for setting policies and practices regarding the funding

formula, planning, and design of school facility renovation or construction of new school

buildings. Enrollment in the school districts was increasing. Therefore, the school districts

6

must provide more space for the increasing enrollment while at the same time focus on the

educational environment.

According to Filardo (2008), many of the schools today in the United States were in

deteriorating conditions and out-of-date design. These deficiencies impaired the quality of

teaching and learning as well as contributed to health and safety problems for the staff and

students in the schools. There was no part of the educational process that can stand alone

when improving school facilities. The educational process was a very complex system.

Improving school facilities, the effect on learning, and the educational environment, plays

an integral role in educators improving the education of the students and providing good

school facilities (Filardo, 2008).

The findings in this research study provided data on the relationship between school

facility and learning environment and how growing school districts can effectively address

or plan for students learning needs with the appropriate facilities. The quality of public

school facilities was important to the discussion about school infrastructure. We were not

just speaking about the buildings themselves, but what we need these buildings forthe

knowledge creation and transfer of learning (Filardo, 2008).

Rationale

The public schools in the state of Texas were continually seeing an increase in

student enrollment year after year. According to the Texas Education Agency ([TEA],

2007), during the 1995-1996 school years, there were 3,799,032 students. By the 2005-2006

school years, enrollment was 4,521,043 students in the public schools in Texas. Over the 10-

year time period, total enrollment had increased by 722,011 students or 19%. This increase

7

in student enrollment showed on the average of about 2% each year (TEA). School districts

must seek and provide space for the growing student population. At the same time,

lawmakers and educators must find a way to provide good, safe, equitable, and quality

school facilities.

According to Earthman (2002), school facilities had an impact on teacher

effectiveness and student performance. Older facilities had problems with noise level and

thermal environment. Therefore, the age of school buildings played an important part in

students performance.

According to the GAO (2005a) every state in the United States had school buildings

that were in poor condition. Many students attended schools where their safety, learning

opportunities, and health were threatened (Earthman; USDE, 1999). The GAO (1995a)

reported that there were about 42 million public school students who attended school in a

building that needed major building repair. These old buildings did not have the features to

control the thermal environment, good roofs, adequate lighting, and adequate space that

were necessary for good learning environment (Earthman). According to Filardo, when

maintenance and repairs occurred at schools, health of the school improved, teachers were

retained in the school, and the school environment became more conducive to high-quality

teaching and learning.

Research Questions

These questions guided this research study:

R1 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational

facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and

8

achievement, and teacher turnover rate as characterized by the Total Learning

Environment Assessment (TLEA)?

R2 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational

facilities have on the student performance and achievement as characterized by

the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)?

R3 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational

facilities have on teacher turnover rate as characterized by the Texas Public

Education Information Management System (PEIMS)?

R4 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational

facilities have on the school climate as characterized by the Organizational

Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQ-RS)?

Significance of the Study

The United States General Accounting Office ([GAO], 1995b) (as cited in Dewees,

1999) activated a renewed interest in the condition of educational facilities nationwide. The

GAO (1995b) found that there were a high number of inadequate buildings, in rural, urban,

as well as suburban areas. The most common problem was the age of the schools (GAO,

1995b). Education reforms required schools to accommodate new teaching and learning

styles, which included providing laboratory classrooms; flexible instruction area that can

facilitate small-group, large-group, and multiage instruction, and multimedia centers that

offer a variety of technological resources (Dewees). Dewees (1999) noted that the primary

purpose for public school facilities should be to provide a quality educational environment

9

for teaching and learning. Provision for proper care and maintenance of school facilities

should be provided at all times.

The National Parent Teachers Association ([NPTA], 2008) contended that school

environment significantly impacts students academic achievement. The NPTA believed

that states must ensure that all students should receive the chance for quality education in

facilities that are safe, well-equipped, and sufficiently maintained.

According to Filardo (2008), school districts faced problems of the basic condition

of their buildings as well as the need to modernize obsolete or old building designs. School

districts had to face the problem of (a) early childhood educationthe expansion of half-

day kindergartens to full-day programs for three year olds; (b) technology for instruction,

security, and administrationneed for electrical upgrades, video, data highways, computers,

smart boards, and other classroom technology; and (c) science educationlaboratory,

hands-on, and inquiry-based science (Filardo).

This research study was significant in exploring the relationship of the school

learning environment and school facilities. Educational leaders must support reform that

helped to increase student performance. Educational leaders must understand the

relationship that existed between learning and school facilities. Identifying specific factors

that contributed to the learning and educational environment was significant in helping

administrators, planners, lawmakers, and teachers prioritize what areas of the learning and

the educational environment process led to a quality education for all students in the state of

Texas.

Information that was gathered from this research study was useful for lawmakers and

educators in planning and making decisions about future funding for facilities. Specific

10

needs were often unknown. However, there was a need for equitable facilities

improvements in the state of Texas and the nations school districts. Most states were

decreasing funding to school districts, while facilities needs were growing (Luke, 2007).

Definition of Terms

The following definitions were used operationally in the study:

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS). A statewide system in the state of

Texas that compiles an array of information on the performance of students and school

finance in every school and district each year. The system involves campus and district

performance ratings, district accreditation status, and other district and state-level reports

on population, staffing, and finance.

Educational effectiveness. An output of specific review or analyses that measure the

quality of the achievement of a specific educational goal (United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, 2008).

Educational facility. The process of conceiving and selecting the structure, elements,

arrangement, materials, and so on for a school building or facility; the plan or layout of the

building (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2008).

Learning environment. The context for informal and formal curricula and the matrix

that nurtures or inhibits learner growth (Robins, 2005).

Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). A statewide reporting

system in the state of Texas for school districts to report to the Texas Education Agency.

School design patterns. Physical arrangements of the environmental components

with which students interact (Tanner, 2000).

11

School facilities. The plan or layout of the building or buildings collectively used for

instructional purposes (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2008).

Student performance and achievement. The number of students passing Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests during the 2007-2008 school year. Data

provided for a percentage of students passing all tests as well as disaggregated by

percentages passing language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Teacher turnover rate. Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) count of teachers

employed at the high school in the fall of year one who were not employed the fall of year

two, divided by the total FTE count for the fall of year one. This will be calculated as a

three-year average for the school years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008.

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Criterion-reference test required

by the state of Texas since 2002. Texas high school students in Grades nine, ten, and eleven

were assessed in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made for the purposes of this study:

1. Administrators and teachers understood and answered the surveys honestly and

objectively.

2. Administrators and teachers at the high school in the school district completed

the questionnaires.

3. Administrators and teachers responded to all questions on each questionnaire.

12

Limitations

The following limitations were noted for this study:

1. Only identified 2008-2009 school administrators and teachers in a school district

located in northeast Texas were selected to participate in this research study.

2. Data collection was restricted to these instrumentsTotal Learning Environment

Assessment (TLEA) and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire

for Secondary Schools (OCDQ-RS).

3. The number in this research study was limited to the administrators who

responded to the questionnaires.

Nature of the Study

This study was a mixed method research that used questionnaires and interviews to

identify and appraise school facilities and learning environment. According to Lane, Bishop,

Gibbs, and Lane (2006), because of accountability, administrators and school personnel

must have or possess deftness, wisdom, as well as competence to be able to assess their

roles as effective educators or leaders, and to acquire the understanding and knowledge of

how to perform facilities studies of schools and other buildings placed in their care, control,

and custody. Therefore, it was imperative that administrators attain the expertise and

aptitude needed to manage school facilities under their tutelage or guardianship (Lane et al.,

2006).

The Council of Educational Facility Planners ([CEFPI], 1998) Guide for School

Facility Appraisal, 1998 Edition, was utilized to appraise school facilities (Hawkins &

Lilley, 1998). The major categories of the CEFPI appraisal questionnaire included the

13

school site, structural and mechanical features, plant maintainability, school building safety

and security, educational adequacy, and environment for education. The Total Learning

Environment Assessment Middle School Version (TLEA) (McGowen, 2007) was modified

to fit secondary schools to characterize the school facilities in this school district located in

northeast Texas. The questionnaire included educational adequacy; academic learning

spacespecialized learning space, support space, community and parent space; and

environment for educationexterior environment, interior environment, and visual

reinforcement.

The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools

(OCDQ-RS) was administered to the principal, assistant principal, and the teachers to gather

data to assess perceptions of school climate. Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991) developed

this questionnaire to measure and mapped the domain of the climates of high schools along

the continuum from open to close. The OCDQ-RS was designed specifically for secondary

schools (Hoy et al., 1991). The OCDQ-RS mapped out five dimensions of school climate

two at the administrative level and three at the teacher level (Hoy et al., 1991). The five

aspects of school interaction formed two basic dimensions of school climate intimacy and

openness (Hoy et al., 1991; Kottkamp et al., 1987).

A demographic questionnaire was developed and administered to the teachers.

The demographic questionnaire included (a) age of the teacher, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity, (d)

highest level of education completed, (e) number of years at the current school, (f) years of

teaching experience, (g) number of principals under which the teacher has worked, and (h)

primary position, and (i) number of years teaching under the current principal. Interviews

were used in this research study. The researcher interviewed the teachers. The researcher

14

used open-ended questions in the interviews that were used in McGowens (2007) research

study, with the approval of the researchers committee members.

This research was conducted as a mixed method research study that used descriptive

statistics to analyze the data. Data on student performance and achievement and teacher

turnover rate was acquired from the TEA website and the TEA Division of Communication

and Public Information, and the reports that have been generated by the school district office

for 2007-2008 academic years.

Data necessary for a statistical comparison to the TLEA scores were obtained from

the TEA. Scores for student performance and achievement will be gathered from TEAs

website through Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports and the reports

generated by the school district office. Student performance and achievement data were

based on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores reported for the

high school grades nine, ten, and eleven. Teacher turnover rate was calculated on the

instructional staff at the high school. The turnover rate data were gathered from the Texas

Education Agency Division of Communication and Public Information for the 2005-2006,

2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) for Windows Version 17.0 was used to code, score, and analyze the data to produce

numerical and graphical results for this research study. The SPSS provided a broad range of

capabilities for this research study.

Theoretical Framework

Akinsannmi (2008) discussed how it is impossible for school designers to create a

perfect learning environment. Learning environments were often designed to suite or

15

support particular learning theories that can explain the learning process. Many researchers

based their theories on physiological, psychological, and sociological changes that take

place when learning occurs (Saettler, 1990; Schwier, 1995). There were many learning

environments that were often described in terms of social climate, curriculum design, and

pedagogical philosophy (Akinsanmi, 2008).

In his study, Akinsanmi (2008) explained three theories of how learning that took

place. The schools of thought included behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The

behaviorism theory started during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A baby

came into the world with a blank slate tabular rasa (Akinsanmi, 2008, p. 1). The babies

learned appropriate as well as inappropriate behavior from positive or negative

reinforcement (Akinsanmi, 2008; Skinner, 1953; Squires & McDougall, 1994). The

behaviorism theory putted the responsibility of the knowledge transfer on the teacher. The

student was the passive participant. The learning environments were designed based on this

school of thought that included teacher-focused, structured, lecture-based, and the use of a

reward system and punishment to promote learning (Akinsanmi, 2008; Bennett &

LeCompte, 1990). The physical learning environments included fenced in single buildings,

classroom wings were laid out like an assembly line, and the teachers desk was the main

point of focus as well as the chalkboard. The classrooms provided little room for flexibility

(Akinsanmi, 2008; Bennett & LeCompte, 1990).

The cognitivism theory came into existence in the second half of the twentieth

century when many researchers found that behaviorism did not account for all learning

(Akinsanmi, 2008, Gagne, 1984; Semple, 2000). The cognitivism theory focused on the

study of mental processes and used it to explain learning (Akinsanmi, 2008; Semple, 2000).

16

This learning theory argued that the mind was a black box that should be opened and

understood (Akinsanmi, 2008, p. 2). The learner was viewed as an information processor

(like a computer) (Bruner, 1966; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). The learning

environments encouraged curiosity and provided inquiry. Schools were built in single or

two-story buildings connected by walkways. The classroom buildings housed students

according to their grades; usually many the classes were of one grade level on one floor

(Akinsanmi, 2008, Bruner, 1996; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992).

The constructivism theory contended that the mind was a blank slate and that

learning was a process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it (Akinsanmi, 2008;

Boyle, 1994). This theory viewed learning as an active process of making meanings from

experience (Akinsanmi, 2008; Semple, 2000). The responsibility for learning was on the

learner not the teacher. The learning environment designs were based on this theory was

student-centered, collaborative, cooperative, and experiential. Teachers served as facilitators

(Caine & Caine, 1991). Caine and Caine (1991) noted that the learning environment should

be safe, challenging, comfortable, social, and enriched. Learning opportunities did not

necessarily take place in the classroom setting. Learning opportunities could take place in

the hallways, outdoors, or during lunchtime (Caine & Caine, 1991).

According to the Clinton-Gore Administration (2000) report on modernizing

Americas schools, good facilities were an important precondition for student learning,

provided that other conditions were present that supported a strong academic program in the

schools. Researchers had found that poorer achievement was attributed to specific building

features such as substandard science facilities, noisy external environments, air

17

conditioning, classroom furniture, as well as locker conditions (Cash, 1993; Clinton-Gore

Administration, 2000; Earthman, 1996; Edwards, 1992; Hines, 1996).

Tanner and Lackneys (2006) study found several trends that influenced the design

of learning environments that included principles for site and building educational space,

principles for shared school and community facilities, community spaces, principles related

to the character of all spaces, and principles related to site design and outdoor learning

spaces. Teachers must be given an opportunity to influence school design that incorporated

creating learning spaces throughout the interior as well as the exterior of a school. Teachers

must be able to create physical environments that are conducive to learning (Wilson, 2008).

Billingsley (1993) discussed three major factors that influence teacher retention.

They were employment factors, external factors, and personal factors. Employment factors

were professional qualifications, commitment, and work conditions. External factors were

societal institutional and economic variables. Personal factors included the family,

demographic, and affective portions of a teachers career decision.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

This research study was divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 2 presents the literature

reviewhistory of school facilities, condition of Americas schools, school facilities and

student performance and achievement, school facilities and school climate and school

culture, school facilities and teacher retention, learning environment and school building

design, characteristics of high performing schools, and a summary. Chapter 3 presents the

methodology an introduction, methodology, research design and procedures, population and

sampling, instrumentation, data collection and procedures, data analysis and procedures,

18

ethical considerations, and a summary. Chapter 4 discusses presentation and analysis of

data. Chapter 5 discusses the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

The estimated timeline for the research study was approximately 9 months beginning from

January and concluding in September.

19

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Chapter 2 discussed the literature review on the impact of school facilities on the

educational environment. This chapter examined the theoretical perspectives of student

achievement and school facilities, theory of teacher attrition and teacher retention, theoretic

perspectives of school climate and the learning environment, history of school facilities,

condition of Americas schools, school facilities and student performance and achievement,

school facilities, school climate and school culture, school facilities and teacher retention,

assessing school facilities, learning environment and school building design, characteristics

of high performing schools, and summary.

Theoretical Perspectives of Student Achievement and School Facilities

Theorists, Earthman (1996), Edwards (1992), Edwards (1996), and Hines (1996) had

shown in their research that school climateorderly, appropriate, and safe educational

facilities, which were conducive to teaching and learning, to be determinant of academic

achievement. Edwards (1992) investigated the relationship between school building

conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in schools in the Washington, D.

C. school system. Edwards (1992) found that building condition had an effect on student

achievement.

Cash (1993) investigated the relationship between school building conditions,

student behavior, and student achievement in rural high schools in Virginia. Cash found

significant differences between the achievement scores of students in substandard buildings

20

than those above-standard buildings. Cash found that a larger number of differences in

scores of students when cosmetic features of a building were used as a measure of

comparison (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2006).

Bowers and Burkett (1988) investigated the differences in health, attendance,

behavior, and achievement in rural Tennessee. Bowers and Burkett found that there was a

relationship between the physical environment and health, attendance, behavior, and student

achievement. Phillip (1997) also found that there was a definite relationship between age of

the school facility and students reading achievement scores.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000),

research had demonstrated that there was a relationship between student performance

(achievement and behavior) and the condition of the built environment. School personnel as

well as school board members can improve the educational opportunities of their students

by insuring that buildings are in good condition and to provide the best possible learning

environment that influences the educational opportunities of all students under their charge.

Lackney and Chang (1992) concluded that

Studying building conditions and educational adequacy within the context of

historical change in the school districts referendums and building programs,

provides unique opportunities to understand how and why improving facilities

conditions and educational adequacy across the district may influence outcomes and

may provide more substantial and robust evidence for the relationship between

school building condition and learning in the district. (p. 1)

According to Lackney and Picus (2008), school facilities should be responsive to the

changing programs of educational delivery. School facilities should provide an environment

21

that was safe, secure, comfortable, accessible, well-ventilated, well-illuminated,

aesthetically pleasing, and should be an integral component of the conditions of learning.

As public education in the United States entered the twenty-first century, educational

leaders and policy-makers were faced with increasing costs for the maintenance and

modernization of educational facilities. Driven by two factorsa considerable

backlog of deferred maintenance expenditures and needs, and the need to ensure that

classrooms have adequate facilities to accommodate the growing use of technology

estimates of the costs for maintenance and modernization of school facilities have

soared (Lackney & Picus, 2008, p. 7).

Theory of Teacher Attrition and Teacher Retention

Teacher attrition and teacher retention are theories that potentially guide the quality of

services for students in education.

Human Capital Approach

According to Kirby and Grissmer (1993), the theory of teacher attrition included

(a) individuals who made systematic assessments of benefits and costs of entering and

staying in a profession; (b) two types of human capital: generic (which could be transferred

to another occupation), and specific (relevant to that profession only), and; (c) the greater

accumulation of specific human capital, the lower the probability of attrition; hence attrition

and turnover were more likely early in the career (p. 10). The human capital theory was

where people make systematic assessments of the net monetary and nonmonetary benefits

from different occupations and made systematic decisions throughout their careers to enter,

stay, or leave an occupation (Kirby et al., 1993). The monetary benefits included promotion

22

opportunities, value of benefits, and the stream of income in that profession. The

nonmonetary benefits included support of peers and superiors, working conditions;

compatibility of hours and schedules with family and leisure needs, learning attitudes of

students, parental support, and availability of adequate facilities (Kirby et al., 1993). As a

person stayed in a profession, he or she accumulated human capital that changed into wage

premiums (Kirby et al., 1993).

Teacher Retention

Ingersoll (2003) denoted that in the United States, about 50% of the teachers left the

profession within their first five years of teaching. Movement of these teachers definitely

affected the composition of teachers in the school, institutional stability, and the

demographics and qualifications of the teacher workforce (Ingersoll, 2003; United States

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2005). Darling-Hammond

(2000) study indicated that the effects of well-prepared teachers on student achievement

were stronger than the influences of student background factors, such as minority status,

poverty, and language background. The National Commission on Teaching and Americas

Future ([NCTAF], 2003) found that teacher turnover directly impacted student achievement

and accountability.

Theoretical Perspectives of School Climate and the Learning Environment

Marshall (2009) explained that school climate could affect many areas and people

within schools. School climate played a significant role in providing a healthy and positive

atmosphere (Marshall, 2009). The physical structure of a school building and the

interactions between students and teachers, the characteristics of schools, were two diverse

23

factors that affected and helped to define the broad concept of school climate (Marshall,

2009).

For many years, research on school climate had shown and had continued to be

examined and redefined as a result of its significant influences on educational outcomes.

Kupermire, Leadbeater, Emmons, and Blatt (1997) found that a positive school climate was

associated with behavioral and emotional problems for students. Haynes (1998) found that

positive school climate perceptions were factors for boys and may supply high-risk students

with a supportive learning environment. McEvoy and Welker (2000) found that positive

school climate, interpersonal relationships, and optimal learning opportunities for all

students could increase achievement levels and reduce disruptive behavior in students.

Manning and Saddlemire (1996) concluded that all aspects of school climate that included

trust, respect, mutual obligation and concerns for others welfare can have powerful effects

on educators and learners interpersonal relationships as well as learners academic

achievement, and overall school progress (p. 41).

History of School Facilities

Tanner and Lackney (2005) discussed school facilities in the United States from

1650 to the 20th century. An appropriate design that had served the basic social and

educational needs of rural small communities for over two hundred years was the

architecture of the small one-room country school building during the Colonial years (1650-

1849). During the Industrial Revolution (1850-1949), in the mid and late 19th century,

schools educated a larger group of immigrants in urban centers. Large multistoried

classroom buildings during the Common School movement (between 1840 and 1880)

24

provided the necessary educational and architectural response. The Information Age (1950

to present) gave rise to the baby boom years the need to build new schools cheaply and

quickly, resulting in poor insulation as well as low quality building systems (Tanner &

Lackney). According to Tanner and Lackney, societal changes that were created by the baby

boom, after World War II, also created a need for school construction.

During the 1950s and through the early 1970s, the open classroom was popular.

The open classroom encouraged group work and team teaching (Tanner & Lackney, 2005).

Tanner and Lackney contended that the rate of building demanded new methods of school

building construction that allowed for further experimentation in flexible and adaptable

space for education.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization ([UNESCO],

2008b) reported that towards the end of the 1950s, industrialized countries took an interest

in education buildings. UNESCO (2008b) also proposed that space should be planned to

take in account of the leading educational innovations today: team teaching, community-

based learning and use of television. In the 1960s, UNESCO (2008b) established

educational facilities in Africa, Asia, Latin American countries, and the Caribbean. In the

1970s, UNESCO established the Program in Educational Building (PEB). This program

involved Australia and New Zealand. During the period of 1984-1993, UNESCO (2008b)

disbursed $34 million dollars for school facilities buildings.

Educators must understand certain conceptual models about buildings if they want to

become competent in facilities (Tepfer, 2008). Tepfer described two building systems. The

first building model was conceived as (a) structural frame (beams, columns, etc.); (b)

exterior skin (exterior doors, windows, and roof); (c) heating, cooling, ventilating systems,

25

and (d) electrical system (includes computer and phone networks) (p. 1). The second

building model was more meaningful and sophisticated. It includes the (a) skinthe stuff

that kept out the elements, including roofing, siding, windows, exterior doors, gutters, caulk

in cracks and joints, and so forth; (b) structureheld up the building. Separation of structure

from space dividing systems was important because it allowed for future addition or

removal of interior walls and doors, as program needs change; (c) systems(services)

provided comfort and communications to the users of the building. Proper separation of

systems and allowance for future system expansion and replacement were essential to good

building design; and (d) space dividerswalls, doors, and so forth. Flexibility for future

change was probably as important as the original layout, as most buildings were re-

configured during their lives; (e) stuffwhat we used in our daily lives, the furniture, books,

chalk, table lamps, and so forth, as well as the people who occupied the space; and (e) site

where the building was and was largely immutable. School sites evolved over time with

changing needs for outdoor education and recreation, but these changes were largely

superficial and respect the original site characteristics and placement of the buildings. Large

buildings were very rarely moved to a new site (p. 2). This model appeared in Stewart

Brands How Buildings Learn (Tepfer).

Condition of Americas Schools

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics ([NCES], 2000),

Abramson (1999), and GAO (1995a), research had shown that over the past decade the

physical condition of public schools in America was well noted. In 1999, there were

approximately 60% of schools that reported at least one building feature that needed

26

extensive repair, overhaul, or replacement (NCES, 2000). GAO (1995a) contended that the

building features that most needed repairs were (a) doors, (b) windows, (c) roofs, (d)

heating, (e) ventilation, (f) air conditioning, (g) plumbing, (h) exterior walls, and (i)

electrical power (p. 2).

Many of the school facilities were in exceptional condition, while others were in

unsuitable condition (NCES, 2000). The American Society of Civil Engineers ([ASCE],

2008) pointed out that the federal government had not assessed the condition of Americas

schools since 1999. In 1999, it was estimated that $127 billion was needed to bring school

facilities to good condition (NCES, 2000). The National Education Association ([NEA],

2000) reported that $268 billion was needed to bring schools to good condition.

According to GAO (1995a), Americas schools needed $112 billion to complete

renovations, repairs, and modernizations to restore facilities to good overall condition, to

comply with federal mandates, and upgrade existing schools nationwide (pp. 5-6). GAO

(1996) reported that in the state of Texas school districts reported that (a) 25% to less than

35% had at least one inadequate building, (b) 50% to less than 65% had at least one

inadequate building feature, (c) 50% or more had satisfactory environmental conditions, and

(d) 40% or more needed to spend more than the national average ($1.7 million) to bring

facilities into good working condition (pp.7-13). NCES (2008) discussed factors that

contributed to school conditions. The factors were (a) deferred maintenance and

renovationthe decision of overlooking the maintenance and modernization of old schools

facilities versus the instructional programs because of insufficient funds and (b)

overcrowdingthe number of students enrolled in the school was larger than the number of

27

students the school was designed to accommodate (the facilities were too small to

accommodate the students and teachers who reside there) (pp. 3-4).

Although the majority of schools were in adequate condition, functionally young,

and not overcrowded, there were still a substantial number of schools that were in poor

condition, and some of them were suffering from age and overcrowding. Past experience

suggested that it was costly to correct these problems (NCES, 2008). According to the

ASCE (2008a), 45 million students attended approximately 86,000 public schools in the

United States (p. 1). The ASCE (2008a) found that the average age of the nations schools

was 42 years. Overcrowding had become a major problem for many school districts across

America. Influx of workers and economic growth had created a surge in the number of

school-aged children (ASCE, 2008).

However, school facility problems varied by location (suburban versus urban), and

community characteristics (wealthy versus poor). The ASCE (2008a) found that more

deficient conditions were found in cities serving 50% minority students and 70% poor

students. Rural schools are inadequate. The facilities we teach our children in played a very

important role in their future and ours. As educators, if we were unable to construct the type

of facilities that were not conducive to the successful educational environment of our

children, then we as a group of professionals were letting our future generations down.

School districts were looking at the problem of aging school facilities, especially

those facilities that were now 30-50 years old, which were in dire need of renovation or

replacement (Wilson, 2007). Most of these schools were built in the 20th century. In the

21st century, educators must be able to make changes to teaching missions and techniques

as well as the related impact to the physical facilities (Wilson).

28

GAO (1996) reported that 25% to less than 35% of the school districts in Texas had

at least one inadequate building; 50% to less than 65% had at least one inadequate building

feature; 50% or more had satisfactory environmental conditions; 40% or more needed to

spend more than the national average ($5 million) to bring facilities into good working

condition. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (2006) reported on the first results of

a comprehensive assessment of Texas school facilities: (a) out of 3,500 instructional

facilities, 62% were rated good or excellent; 25% were rated as being in fair condition; 6%

were rated as poor or in need of replacement; (b) four billion dollars in facilities needs; and

(c) 659 elementary, 125 intermediate, and 115 high schools that had enrollments that

exceeded the schools capacity (pp. 5-7).

Many research studies indicated that many school buildings were either inadequate

to house current modes of instruction or require major repair or renovation or inadequate to

house current student populations (Honeyman & Sayles 1995; Earthman, 2002; Frazier,

2003; Schneider, 2003). Condition of school facilities related to the age, maintenance, and

compliance with safety, health, and special needs regulations (Honeyman & Sayles). The

condition of Americas school facilities was becoming a major educational issue today.

Evidence suggested that facilities continued to be predominantly a local concern. The

methods used to find facilities improvement projects contributed to a greater and continued

dependence on local wealth; this also means high levels of unmet facility needs when the

school district could not financially support the needed facility development (Honeyman &

Sayles).

According to Earthman (2002), there were many school districts throughout the

country that had a large number of old, worn-out buildings in which to educate students.

29

Many of these old buildings simply did not have the features, (control of the thermal

environment, adequate lighting, good roofs, and adequate space), which were necessary for

a good learning environment (Earthman, 2002). School buildings that could adequately

provide a good learning environment were essential for student success (Earthman, 2002;

United States Department of Education, 2000).

Age and Quality of School Facilities

Honeyman and Sayles (1995) clarified that the age of school facilities was associated

with the level of deterioration of a facility, and a well constructed, and well-maintained old

building in good condition. Honeyman and Sayles (1995) reported that even though

proportions of old buildings varied between states to states as well as between school

districts within the states,

almost 30% of all school buildings are approaching the end of their useful life at 50

years; over 50% of the buildings are built before 1960 and are now nearly three-

quarters through the estimated 50-year useful life of a well constructed and

maintained building. (p. 4)

Age of the school was associated with the level of deterioration of a facility, and a well

constructed, well maintained old building in good condition (Honeyman & Sayles, 1995).

The NCES (2000) reported that more than one in four schools were built prior to

1950 and the average age of the school buildings was 42 years old. Lyons (2001) contended

that environmental nuisances were beginning to appear now in the public and media.

Research studies were uncovering evidence that showed these environmental nuisances and

other aspects of school facilities had a large negative impact on childrens education. Age is

one of the systemic problems. With the average age of schools being 42 years of age, these

30

schools were facing demands that were never intended or even conceived when these

buildings were built (Lyons, 2001). Education today was delivered in an entirely new

manner, with new tools, techniques, and teaching methods that increasingly did not fit the

simplistic conventions of 42 years old school designs (Lyons). Many of the older schools

could not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) accessibility requirements

without extensive and expensive renovations (Lyons, 2001). There were only a few 42-year-

old schools that could accommodate a technologically driven working environment (Lyons).

McGuffey (1982) claimed that earlier studies correlated student achievement with

better building quality, newer school buildings, better thermal comfort, air quality, better

lighting, more advance laboratories, and libraries. Researchers found that building age and

quality were linked to higher test scores on standardized tests (Chan, 1996; Schneider,

2002); students had better records for health, attendance, and discipline (Burkett, 1987); and

student achievement and behavior (Jago & Tanner, 1999).

Chan (1996) noted that school facilities played a significant role in shaping students

learning process. According to Chan (1996), there had been seven research studies in the

past that found a relationship of school building age and student achievement (Burkhead,

Fox, & Holland, 1967; Chan, 1979; Chan, 1996; Guthrie, Kleindorfer, Levin & Stout, 1972;

McGuffey & Brown, 1978; Michelson, 1970; Plumley, 1978; Thomas, 1962).

According to Earthman (2002), the age of the school building had been tested as a

factor in relationship to student achievement. The age of a building in and of itself was

usually not an important factor in influencing student performance, but the building

components that were necessary for good student learning (e.g., thermal quality and

acoustical control) were usually absent in older buildings. If older buildings did have some

31

of the important components, these components would be compromised of poor

maintenance or retrofitting practices. Earthman and Lemasters (1996) from a research

survey, found that there was a clear conclusion that followed, that older buildings usually

did not have the main attributes of a modern building that were associated with a positive

physical environment conducive to student learning.

Facility Management

Kowalski (2006) stipulated that school buildings constituted sizeable investment of

public funds, and their development and maintenance were cogent administrative

responsibilities. One of the most essential responsibilities for superintendents was to provide

adequate facilities (Hoyle, 1999; Kowalski, 2006). Much attention had been given to facility

management for the following reasons: (a) at least 25% of the nations school buildings in

the 1980s were in poor physical condition and provided inappropriate learning

environments; and (b) in the 1990s, percentages increased by 33% (GAO, 1996; Kowalski).

With unstable increase of enrollment in many school districts, superintendents had to

engage in continuous construction (Kowalski).

In many school districts, decrease of enrollment had caused consolidation and school

closings. Introducing technology in the instructional environments had caused problems or

challenges for superintendents. Superintendents had to devise ways of placing or infusing

computers in schools that were not designed for computers (Kowalski, 2002; 2006). Equity

issues in school finance had been contested in courts. These lawsuits dealt with operating

funds, and funding capital outlay (Kowalski). In other words, superintendents had to provide

more services for less money (Kowalski).

32

School facilities should be an integral part or component of the conditions for

learning (Lackney & Picus, 2008). The design and management of school facility should

provide a sense of ownership, security, and safety, personalization, privacy, control, and

sociality spaciousness or crowdedness (Lackney & Picus, 2008). According to Lackney and

Picus (2008), the management of school facilities lasted a lifetime, while planning,

designing new construction for schools took only two or three years. Administrators needed

to establish and monitor facility maintenance programs for their school districts. This

maintenance program included preventive, deferred, repair or upkeep, and emergency

maintenance. Responsibility for this facility management lies with the district office and the

school site (Lackney & Picus, 2008).

The challenges facing school systems required community efforts to be combined

with government to create a focus on the student. The overhaul of the school buildings

needed to occur at all grade levels in order for effective change to succeed. Educators must

recognize that schools, schools structures, and schooling need to be very different to prepare

students for the world of work (Bond & Giles, 1997; Randeree, 2006).

Equity in School Facilities Funding

The financial straits facing the task of improving the educational facilities should

include the topic of equity in school construction funding and the discussion of the condition

of American schools. A financial factor that contributed to the deterioration of

the nations school buildings was the reduced funding that was made available to school

districts personnel to properly maintain school facilities (McGowen, 2007).

According to Agron (2003), budgets for school facilities had dropped. Most school

maintenance budgets were now a small portion of the school districts total operating

33

budgets (Agron). When school districts failed to adequately fund school facility

maintenance, usually school personnel postponed the necessary additions or improvements

to existing buildings (Agron).

Many studies had reported on adequate and inadequate financing of public schools

(Haas, 1987; Lefkowits, 2004; National conference of State Legislatures Reports, 1998;

Texas House Research Organization Focus Report, 2005; Wisconsin Center for Education

Research, 2008). According to Haas, inadequate financing of public school facilities under

the maximum class size requirements in Texas public education raised issues of equity and

quality. Haas examined the cost of facilities needs and evaluated the options available to the

state as well as to local school districts. Much impetus for research studies in Texas came

from the fact that providing for the construction of school facilities had always been and

will be a local responsibility (Haas).

Texas Legislature past the class size law and chose to limit elementary classes to 22

students. Many of the districts, affected by the new requirement were small districts,

needing only one or two classrooms. For these districts, the cost of acquiring new facilities

to meet the new requirements was enormous (Haas). The law did not take into consideration

the problems that many of the school districts would face in meeting the new class size

requirement (Haas).

According to Haas, in the first half of the twentieth century, funding for education

was far more dependent on local funds than on state monies. The amount of money spent for

education was almost entirely a function of district wealth. As a result, there were enormous

discrepancies that existed between the levels of education being provided across the state.

The system of public school financing, better known as power equalizing, or district power

34

equalizing, consisted of matching grants from the state to local school districts (Haas).

Under this system, the size of the matching rate was related to the districts property wealth.

Over the past thirty years or plus years, school facility funding in Texas showed that

inequities still existed today, even though several programs (e.g., Instructional Facilities

Allotment [IFA] and Existing Debt Allotment [EDA]) had been implemented to attempt to

level the playing field (Clark, 2001). According to the Texas Association of School Boards

([TASB], 2008), state funding for public school facilities was a recent development in Texas

school finance. Before 1997, school districts in Texas financed their facilities using local tax

revenue. After 1997, the Texas Legislature authorized the IFA. The IFA program provided

assistance to help eligible school districts to make debt service payments on qualifying

bonds and lease-purchase agreements (TASB).

In 1999, the Texas Legislature approved another program, the EDA. The EDA

program provided assistance to school districts in Texas to pay for existing bonded debt

(TASB, 2008). Even though these programs were passed, unmet facilities needs were still

growing today. The state of Texas was continuing to experience increases in student

enrollment. The same amount of money that was made available 10 years ago, $150 million,

was being requested through the IFA funding program request for the 2008-2009

school years (TASB).

According to Dawn (1999), financing in the public schools in Texas cost

approximately $22 billion a year. Over half of this fund, from property taxes, was levied by

the local school districts. Until recently, most of the policy initiatives had focused on

equalizing funds for maintenance and operations. Dawn also pointed out that building upon

the overall school finance system, the Texas facilities program provided equal access to

35

revenue for the specific purpose of repaying debt that is issued to finance instructional

facilities.

The House Research Organization (2005) reported that forty-seven school districts in

the state of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Texas Supreme Court pertaining to the financial

system of funding schools. These districts alleged that the Texas Legislature failed to meet

standards under the Texas Constitution, which required the Texas Legislature to create an

efficient system for providing a general diffusion of knowledge that constitutes a minimally

adequate education for students. The Texas Supreme Court found that the current Texas

school finance system failed to provide the forty-seven school districts with sufficient access

to revenue to provide for general diffusion of knowledge to their students.

School Facilities and Student Performance and Achievement

Lackney (1999a) argued that school buildings were critical to the teaching and

learning process. Lackney also took the viewpoint that the factors responsible for student

achievement were ecological they acted together as a whole in shaping the context within

which learning took place. The physical setting the school building was an undeniably

integral part of the ecological context for learning (p. 2). The physical factors that had a

profound impact on the teaching and learning process were (a) full-spectrum and natural

lighting, (b) the reduction and control of noise, (c) the location and sighting of schools, (d)

optimal thermal conditions, (e) school size and class size, and (f) the building condition

(Lackney, 1999a, p. 7). Research had shown that there was an explicit relationship between

the physical characteristics of school buildings and educational outcomes (Lyons, 2001).

36

School facilities and the classroom must be flexible enough to accommodate changing

learning patterns and methods.

According to the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations: Staff Information Report ([TACR], 2003), reported that there was growing

evidence of a correlation between the adequacy of a school facility and student behavior and

performance. Research studies that were conducted in the past three decades found that

there was significant relationship between the condition of a school, or classroom, and

student achievement (Berner, 1993; Cash, 1993; Earthman, 1995; Hines, 1996; Lanham,

1999; TACR). Educators and policymakers should be concerned about the relationship

between student learning and achievement and school facilities (TACR, 2003). Educators

and policymakers must also be concerned about the health, security, and psychological

issues (TACR, 2003).

Buckley, Schneider, and Shang (2004a) had pointed out that the Los Angles

Unified School District schools must comply with health and safety regulations and

academic performance. Buckley et al. (2004a) also noted that a good school facility supports

the educational enterprise. Research had shown that good light, clean air and small, quiet,

comfortable, and safe environment were very important for academic achievement (Buckley

et al., 2004a; Earthman and Lemasters, 1996; Lackney, 1999a;

Schneider, 2002).

According to Chan (1996), the learning environment had a direct and an indirect

impact on student achievement. Direct impact included: color, lighting, controlled acoustics,

and air ventilation (Chan). A good learning environment freed students from physical

distress, made it easy for students to concentrate on schoolwork and, induced students in

37

logical thinking. According to Chan, students responded to good and poor learning

environments by expressing positive and negative attitudes. With a positive attitude towards

their learning environment, students learned with high motivation and undoubtedly were

able to demonstrate better performance. When educators disregard the improvement of

learning environment, they ignored the physical difficulties of learning (Chan).

Frazier (1993) indicated that people were influenced and affected by their

environment. Therefore, there were no exceptions to children being exposed to the

environmental conditions in school facilities (Frazier, 1993). Deferred maintenance on

school facilities could cause adverse problems and create an environment that affected the

health and morale of the students and the staff of the school (Frazier, 1993).

Research studies of Anderson (1999), Berner (1993), Cash (1993), Earthman

(1998), Earthman (2002), Hines (1996), and ONeill (2000) had provided support for

research that found that the condition of the school building had a sizeable and measurable

influence upon the achievement of students. There was a growing research literature that

had held the belief that there was a relationship between student achievement and the

conditions condition of school buildings (Hunter, 2006). The United States Department of

Education (2000) found that the environmental conditions in schools, which included the

inoperative heating system, inadequate ventilation, and poor lighting, affected the health and

learning as well as the morale of students and the staff. Other research studies and literature

had focused on lack of science labs, school safety, and class size (Hunter).

Lighting Quality

Lighting in a classroom was one of the most critical physical characteristics that

impacted the teaching and learning process (Jago & Tanner, 1999; Phillips, 1997). Jago and

38

Tanner contended that visual environment affected a learners ability to perceive visual

stimuli and affected his or her mental attitude, and thus performance. Hughes (2005)

contended that lighting in a school could have a great impact on what students were able to

see in the classrooms. Natural light was one type of light that influenced peoples minds and

bodies (Hughes, 1999; Lyons, 2001). The Hesohnong Mahone Group (1999) reported that

natural light affected learning positively.

Students could not study unless the lighting in the classroom was adequate

(Schneider, 2002). Research studies pertaining to school facilities, student achievement, and

student behavior found that daylight fostered higher student achievement (Lemasters, 1997;

Schneider, 2002). Heschong Mahone Group (1999) did a study covering over 2000

classrooms in three school districts dealing with the effects of daylight on human

performance. The Heschong Mahone Group found that students with the most daylight in

the classroom progressed 20% faster on mathematics test in one year and 26% faster on

reading tests than those students who had learned in classrooms that received the least

amount of natural light (Plympton, Conway & Epstein, 2000; Schneider, 2002).

According to Schneider (2002), natural light in school buildings was the

predominant means of illuminating most school spaces until the 1950s. After the 1950s, as

electric power costs declined, so did the amount of daylight used in schools (Schneider,

2002). Recent studies showed that day lighting in schools significantly increased students

test scores and promoted better health and physical developmentand could be attained

without an increase in school construction or maintenance costs (Plympton et al.).

39

Color Quality

Chan (1996) believed that the use of color in classrooms stimulate thinking,

especially pastel colors. Green and blues were more peaceful colors and red and orange

colors tended to provoke actions (Chan). Pile (1997) reported that classrooms needed colors

that were comfortable for students. Jago and Tanner (1999) suggested that color choices

impacted the teaching and learning process. Sinofsky and Knirck (1981) found that color

influenced behaviors, learning, and student attitudes. Color affected a students attention

span and affected the student and teachers sense of time (Jago & Tanner).

Kowalski (2002) indicated that color schemes complement light by improving sight

conditions, and provided aesthetic qualities to space. When acting together, color and light

could stimulate, relax, and provide expression of warmth. Visual outputs in a school

building can include both natural and artificial lighting (Kowalski, 2002, pp. 49-50).

Brady (2004) noted that color had everything to do with school facilities. Research studies

had found that color affected every student from their mood to their appetite (Brady;

Sinofsky & Knirck, 1981).

Indoor Air Quality

There was growing research that linked student performance and achievement to the

quality of air that students breathed in schools (Energy Star, 2003; Environmental Protection

Agency [EPA], 2000; Fischer & Bayer, 2003; Kennedy 2001; Leach, 1997; Schneider,

2002). The GAO (1995) found that there were 15,000 schools that suffered from poor

indoor air quality, which affected more than 8 million children in schools today. The EPA

(2000) (as cited in Schneider (2002) identified symptoms that included irritated eyes, nose

and throat, upper respiratory infections, nausea, dizziness, headaches and fatigue, or

40

sleepiness (p. 1). According to Schneider (2002), poor air quality made teachers as well as

students sick. This meant that students and teachers could not perform as well as the healthy

students and teachers.

Poor indoor air quality had been associated with increased student absenteeism

(EPA, 2000; Rosen and Richardson, 1999; Schneider, 2002; Smedje & Norback, 1999).

The American Lung Association ([ALA], 2002) found that children in American schools

missed more than 10 million school days each year because of asthma caused by poor

indoor air quality in schools. Shaughnessy (2008) reported that 20% of the American

population spent their days inside K-12 school buildings. There were only a few students

and teachers who realized that the air within the building could adversely affect both their

learning potential as well as their health. The GAO (1995) reported that almost half the

nations schools had poor indoor air quality.

Olson and Kellum (2003) suggested that indoor air quality had direct effects on

student performance. Research had shown that better indoor air quality in schools had

resulted in healthier students and teachers, which had led to less absenteeism and improved

student achievement (EPA, 2000; Olson & Kellum, 2003). Further, they maintain that good

indoor air is important if teachers and students continue to spend significant amounts of time

in the classroom.

Frazier (1993) concluded that the most alarming to school-age children was the

effect of poor indoor air quality. Frazier (1993) pointed that the quality of air that was found

inside public school facilities had a significantly affect on students ability to concentrate.

Andrews and Neuroth (1988) also asserted that there was evidence that suggested that

41

youth, who were under the age of 10 years old, were more vulnerable than the adults to the

types of contaminants (asbestos, radon, and formaldehyde) found in school facilities.

School administrators must recognize the logical inference that the physical well

being of students, as well as the faculty and staff, was an important factor in increasing

student performance. Published and anecdotal reports were now exposing instances of poor

indoor air quality in school facilities, and the potentially serious effects it had on student

health, absenteeism, and performance while at school. It made sense that children could not

perform well when they were sick or absent from school. As school funding was often based

on attendance, schools with good indoor air quality were likely to receive more funding.

Schools with good indoor air quality were also likely to have high teacher retention

rates and spend less on substitute teachers to replace sick members of the staff. This could

improve continuity in school programs and could provide students with higher quality

education (EPA, 2003; Olson & Kellum, 2003). According to EPA (2003), schools should

be designed, built, and maintained in ways to minimize and control sources of pollution,

provide adequate exhaust and outdoor air ventilation by natural and mechanical means,

maintain proper temperature and humidity conditions, and were responsive to students and

staff with particular sensitivities such as allergies or asthma. Failure to deal adequately with

any of these issues could go unnoticed, but could and often does take its toll on health,

comfort, and performance of teachers and students in school (EPA).

Temperature, Humidity, and Thermal Quality

Schneider (2002) showed that temperature and humidity affected indoor air quality.

Indoor air quality promoted or inhibited the presence of bacteria and mold (Schneider,

2002). Wyon (2000) studies had shown that student performance at mental tasks was

42

affected by changes in temperature. Harner (1974) found that the best temperature range for

reading and math was 68 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit. The students ability to learn the reading

and math was adversely affected when the temperature above 74 degrees Fahrenheit. As the

temperature and humidity increased, students discomfort increased, and their achievement

and task-performance deteriorated as attention spans decreased (King & Marans, 1979;

Schneider, 2002).

According to Earthman (2002), good thermal environment of a classroom was very

important to efficient student performance. Research in the past had shown that increases in

temperatures in the workplace tended to decrease worker efficiency and increased the risk of

work related accidents. Harner (1964), Mayo (1955), and Nolan (1960) concluded that the

importance of a controlled thermal environment was stressed as necessary for satisfactory

student performance. In spite of the age of all of these research studies, these findings were

just as germane today as they were a century ago (Earthman, 2002).

Acoustic Quality

According to Earthman (2002), proper and accurate hearing in the classroom was

essential to a students ability to learn. Research dates as far back as Morgan (1917) that

noise was a distraction that interfered with learning and that students learn more when the

classroom noise level is reduced to 40 decibels (Earthman, 2002, p. 4). McGuffey (1982),

Hyatt (1982), and Duffy (1992) stressed that there was a relationship between acoustic

conditions, student health, and student achievement. Further, according to Earthman (2002),

The ability to clearly hear and understand what is being spoken is a prerequisite for

effective learning. When this ability is impaired through unwanted noise, students do not

perform well (p. 5).

43

School Size

As enrollment numbers climbed, the issue of school s