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 ad ministrators were not properly supporting stronger facility management. The poor condition co ndition 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 descriptive statistics to analyze analyze the data. The independent z-test was conducted to determine the difference in i n 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.
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 m y mother is smiling in heaven.
iii
Acknowledgments
I am grateful first, for the support and endorsement of m y 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. J oshua 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.
iv
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
v
History of School Facilities
23
Condition of America’s 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 vi
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
vii
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
viii
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
ix
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
x
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 nation’s education facilities, as America’s 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 S chneider (2002) noted that the average age of our schools was close to fifty years old. Many of the nation’s 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 1
was the responsibility of educators in every state to en sure that every child had access to a quality education in school facilities that provide a n 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 d irect 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 en vironmental 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, aco ustics, 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 times—for skilled jobs in local commun ities, in the quality that 2
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 te achers’ classrooms for daily instruction. Therefore, it was important for school facilities to provide an app ropriate 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 scho ol. 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 3
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 achievem ent 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, teach ers’ skill, and curriculum played a vital role in a child’s 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 today’s society, many of our schools faced many challenges of out-of-date design, deteriorating conditions, and changing utilization pressures (overcrowding and declinin g 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 h ad been associated with teacher motivation and student achievement (Filardo, 2008).
4
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 a s 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 asp ects 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
5
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 p rocess 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 for—the 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 10year time period, total enrollment had increased by 722,011 students or 19%. This increase 6
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 7
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) n oted that the primary purpose for public school facilities should be to provide a quality educational environment
8
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 education—the expansion of halfday kindergartens to full-day programs for three year olds; (b) technology for instruction, security, and administration—need for electrical upgrades, video, d ata highways, computers, smart boards, and other classroom technology; and (c) science education—laboratory, hands-on, and inquiry-based science (Filardo). This research study was significant in exploring the relationship of the scho ol 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 9
needs were often unknown. However, there was a need for equitable facilities improvements in the state of Texas and the nation’s 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 stud y: 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). 10
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 surve ys 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.
11
Limitations
The following limitations were noted for this study: 1. Only identified 2008-2009 school administrators and teache rs in a school district located in northeast Texas were selected to participate in this research study. 2. Data collection was restricted to these instruments—Total 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 env ironment. According to Lane, Bishop, Gibbs, and Lane (2006), because of accountability, administrators and school personnel must have or possess deftness, wisdom, as well as competenc e 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 12
school site, structural and mechanical features, plant maintainability, school b uilding 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 space—specialized learning space, support space, community and parent space; and environment for education—exterior 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 second ary 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 13
used open-ended questions in the interviews that were used in McGowen’s (2007) research study, with the approval of the researcher’s 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 b y 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 TEA’s 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 d ata 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 SP SS 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 o ften designed to suite or 14
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 teacher’s 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). 15
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 ex periential. 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 America’s schools, good facilities were an important precondition for student learning, provided that other conditions were present that supp orted 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
16
conditioning, classroom furniture, as well as locker conditions (Cash, 1993; Clinton-Gore Administration, 2000; Earthman, 1996; Edwards, 1992; Hines, 1996). Tanner and Lackney’s (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 teacher’s career decision.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This research study was divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 2 presents the literature review—history of school facilities, condition of America’s 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 summar y. Chapter 3 presents the methodology an introduction, methodology, research design and procedures, population and sampling, instrumentation, data collection and procedures, data analysis and procedures, 17
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.
18
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction
Chapter 2 discussed the literature review on the imp act 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 America’s schools, school facilities and student performance an d 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 (199 6) had shown in their research that school climate—orderly, 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 19
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 he alth, 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 20
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 th e maintenance and modernization of educational facilities. Driven by two factors–a 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 mo netary 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 21
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 te achers 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 teache rs 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 America’s 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 22
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 o thers’ 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 bu ilding during the Colonial years (16501849). 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) 23
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, communitybased 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, v entilating systems, 24
and (d) electrical system (includes computer and phone networks) (p. 1). The second building model was more meaningful and sophisticated. It includes the (a) skin–the stuff that kept out the elements, including roofing, siding, windows, exterior doors, gutters, caulk in cracks and joints, and so forth; (b) structure–held up the building. Separation of structure from space dividing systems was important because it allowed for future a ddition 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 dividers–walls, doors, and so forth. Flexibility for future change was probably as important as the original layout, as most buildings were reconfigured during their lives; (e) stuff–what 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 Brand’s How Buildings Learn (Tepfer).
Condition of America’s 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 25
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) ex terior 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 America’s 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), America’s schools needed $112 billion to complete renovations, repairs, and modernizations to restore facilities to good overall condition, to comply with federal mandates, and up grade 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 renovation—the decision of overlooking the maintenance and modernization of old schools facilities versus the instructional programs because of insufficient funds and (b) overcrowding—the number of students enrolled in the school was larger than the number of
26
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 nation’s 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 ve rsus urban), and community characteristics (wealthy versus poor). The ASCE (2008a) foun d 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). 27
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 3,5 00 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 America’s 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 man y school districts throughout the country that had a large number of old, worn-out buildings in which to educate students. 28
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 threequarters through the estimated 50-year useful life of a well constructed an d 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 children’s education. Age is one of the systemic problems. With the average age of schools being 42 years of age, these 29
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) ac cessibility requirements without extensive and expensive renovations (Lyons, 2001). There were only a few 42-yearold 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, be tter thermal comfort, air quality, better lighting, more advance laboratories, and libraries. Researchers found th at building age and quality were linked to higher test scores on standardized tests (Chan, 1996; Schneider, 2002); students had better records for health, atten dance, 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 30
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 nation’s 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 oth er words, superintendents had to provide more services for less money (Kowalski).
31
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 nation’s 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 32
budgets (Agron). When school districts failed to adequatel y 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 33
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 district’s property wealth. Over the past thirty years or plus years, school facilit y 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 p ay 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 34
revenue for the specific purpose of repa ying 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 Tex as 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).
35
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 safet y 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 schoo lwork and, induced students in 36
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 o n 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 O’Neill (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 37
Tanner contended that visual environment en vironment affected a learner’s 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 da ylight 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 on e 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 da y lighting in schools significantly increased students’ test scores and promoted better health and physical development—and could be attained without an increase in school construction co nstruction or maintenance costs (Plympton et al.).
38
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 P ile (1997) reported that classrooms needed colors that were comfortable for students. Jago and Tanner Tann er (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 student’s attention span and affected the student and teacher’s sense of time (Jago & Tanner). Tanne r). Kowalski (2002) indicated that color schemes complement light b y improving sight conditions, and provided aesthetic qualities to space. “When acting together, color and light could stimulate, relax, and provide expression expression of warmth. Visual outputs in a school 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 pe rformance and achievement to the quality of air that students breathed in schools (Energ y 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 Th e EPA (2000) (as cited in Schneider (2002) identified symptoms s ymptoms that included irritated eyes, nose and throat, upper respiratory infections, nausea, diz ziness, headaches and fatigue, or 39
sleepiness (p. 1). According to Schneider (2002), p oor 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) (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 adve rsely 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 ai r 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 h ad 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) (1993 ) pointed that the quality of air that was found inside public school facilities had a significantly affect on student’s ab ility to concentrate. Andrews and Neuroth (1988) also asserted that there was evidence that suggested that
40
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 pote ntially 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, an d were responsive to students and staff with particular sensitivities such as allergies or asthma. Failure to deal adequatel y 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 41
affected by changes in temperature. Harner (1974) found that the best temperature rang e 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 achiev ement 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 student’s 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 n oise, students do not perform well” (p. 5). 42
School Size
As enrollment numbers climbed, the issue of school size became relevant to the task of improving student performance (McGowen, 2007). After the tragedy at Columbine disaster in 1999, there was plenty of blame to go around (Kennedy, 2003). The investigation of the tragedy found that there were many signs of potential trouble if the authorities at the school had known the students well enough to detect their paths (Kennedy, 2003). Because of the large enrollment at Columbine, 1,870 students, teachers and administrators were unable to detect the potential trouble, and the inability to know a student and how he or she was coping with school life (Kennedy, 2003, p. 20). Many educators today were trying to combat the disconnectedness some students felt at school by encouraging the creation of smaller schools (Kennedy, 2003). Administrators were moving to create a more personalized setting, where students and teachers developed close relationships and established an atmosphere of trust, in several autono mous schools within the same building, or a large school divided into smaller learning communities (Kennedy, 2003). Small learning environments led to better student performance as well as created environments with fewer incidents of vandalism, violence, or other misbehavior (Kennedy). According to WestEd (2001), recent school shootings had intensified concerns that many students got lost in large, impersonal schools and some become tragically alienated. “At the same time, the push for higher achievement and the quest to narrow the achievement gap between poor students — who were often African American and Latino — and those from middle- and upper-income families had led to questions about the role school size played in student learning” (WestEd, 2001, p. 1).
43
For years, there had been national trends for larger high schools. Until recently, policymakers did not pay attention to red flags that were raised by school size research (Raywid, 1997; 1998 WestEd, 2001). Research literature highlighted small schools as (a) where students at all grade levels learn more in small schools than in large schools (Mosteller, 1995; Raywid, 1997; 1998), (b) at-risk students, who were mo re likely to be violence-free (Toby, 1994), (c) bonds created to influence students’ post-high school behavior (Bensman, 1995; Bush, 1993), and (d) the success of small schools (Raywid, 1997-1998). Attendance
The Center for Public Education ([CPE], 2008) showed that researchers had documented that there was a strong connection between attendance and achievement. According to the 2004 Schools and Staffing Survey by the CPE (2008), about 45% of the nation’s teachers reported that student absenteeism was a mod erate or serious problem in our schools today (p. 1). This data did not look at the actual absenteeism rate, but only measured the teachers’ perceptions of student absenteeism. This data were also one of a few reliable sources of state-by-state data on school attendance (CPE, 2008). School absenteeism was important to student performance. Under NC LB, states must identify schools and school districts that were making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The law required that AYP should be based on student performance. NCLB required two indicators or performance targets to be chosen for evaluation. In Texas, the Texas Education Agency ([TEA], 2003) based evaluations on reading/language arts and math performances and either graduation rates or attendance rates, depending on grade level (p. 1). 44
According to Robert Scott, interim head of the TEA (2003), this new federal evaluation was a strong attempt to ensure that all children got a good education. Improving reading and math skills, as well as graduation and attendance rates, were top priorities. We know that if our high school graduates don’t have basic skills or better in reading and math, they won’t get into a good college or get a well-paying job. This system, along with many state reform efforts will help push students to new achievement levels. (TEA, 2003, p. 1).
School Facilities and School Climate and School Culture
According to Holt and Smith (2002), school facilities had a relationship to student success. Research suggested that there was a linkage between school facilities and student achievement, teacher perceptions concerning the importance of an inviting learning environment, and the attention that factories and retail planners placed on design related to student success (Holt & Smith, 2002). Deal and Peterson (1999) advocated that the school was a key element in influencing student success. The physical plant and the architecture “reflect important beliefs as to what schools are about and the meaning they hold for students and the community” (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 63). Holt and Smith (2002) concluded that the school building climate influenced the outcome of the organization. Research had provided information concerning the importance of climate safety, environment, and technology (Hines, 1996; Holloway, 2000; Holt & Smith, 1999; Moore & Warner, 1998). According to Bly (2007), in order to protect the safety of our schools, educators need to create a healthy, nurturing, and normal school environment, where students felt 45
connected, safe, valued, and responsible for their behavior and learning, while at the same time, provided sufficient security. Uline and Tschannen-Moran (2005) stipulated that one unexamined link between school facilities and student achievement was school climate. School climate had an impact on the learning environment (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2005). It was possible that dilapidated, crowded, or uncomfortable school buildings lead to low morale and to reduced effort even to less positive forms of school leadership. It may be that these dynamics that are responsible for the drop in achievement when school facilities are inadequate. Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2005, p. 1 When educators, policy-makers, and legislators invest in school infrastructure, it stood to reason that teaching and learning environments improved, student achievement was maximized, and jobs were created to help stimulate local economies, while putting more money into the hands of working families (Van Roekel, (2008). He further maintained that “A short-term investment in school repair can have a long-term impact on our nation’s economic well-being. Congress must invest in school infrastructure” (2008, p. 6). According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching ([CFAT], 1990), the physical condition of schools affected the climate for teaching and learning. “Buildings that are poorly maintained, dirty, unattractive, crowded, and unsafe send powerful negative messages to teachers and students” (CFAT, 1990, p. 45). School climate had been defined as “a relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affected their behavior, and is based on their collective perceptions of behavior in schools” (Hoy & Miskel, 1996, p. 141). O’Neill (2000) pointed out that schools with positive climates were usually places where both the staff and students 46
wanted to spend their time. Lewis, Schaps, and Watson (1996) stipulated that students usually worked harder, achieved more, and gave more importance to schoolwork in classes where they felt liked, and respected by teachers and their peers. A positive school climate had a great impact on student success (O’Neill, 2000).
Teacher Retention, Teacher Turnover and School Facilities
Teacher retention, teacher turnover and school facilities are all factors that indirectly affect teaching and learning. Teacher Retention
Buckley, Schneider, and Shang (2004b) indicated that the quality of school facilities was an important factor in the decision making of individual teachers. “The quality of school facilities is an important predictor of the retention and attrition decision” (Buckle y et al., 2004b, p. 2). According to Buckley et al. (2004b), there were a large number of factors that clearly affect teacher retention, “the physical location (school building), and the quality of the location can affect the ability of teachers to teach, teacher morale, and the very health and safely of teachers” (p. 4). Schneider (2002) pointed out that school facilities had a direct affect on teaching and learning. Schneider (2003) also found that the poor conditions of school facilities made it difficult for teachers to teach their students or provided an adequate education to their students, which affected teachers’ health and safety. These poor conditions caused teachers to leave their schools and leave the teaching profession. “Our nation’s school facilities are a critical part of the educational process. Their condition and upkeep must be addressed in the
47
ongoing discourse about student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and accountability” (Schneider, 2003, p. 4). Johnson (2006) concluded that when teachers were successful and sustained in their work, they were likely to remain in teaching. However, schools must provide an array of support. Factors that contributed to the workplaces where teachers hope to achieve success with their students included (a) teaching assignments that match the teacher’s field of expertise; (b) collaborative colleagues; (c) assistance from parents and experts in working with students; (d) support services for students that helped teachers in their work with students, (e) a comprehensive, but flexible curriculum that allowed for meaningful accountability; (f) job-embedded professional development; (g) career op portunities for growth and influence beyond the classroom; and (h) facilities that were safe and wellequipped (Johnson, 2006). If teachers felt that their workplaces had failed them, there w as a good chance that these teachers would transfer to another school or just left the teaching profession altogether (Johnson). Schools must become places where studen ts and teachers could succeed together, if students were to be effectively educated in order to perform to high standards (Johnson). Keller (2003) pointed out that teachers were influenced by the physical conditions within they work, just as students’ behaviors and attitudes were impacted by their physical surroundings. Teachers in larger schools had taught in non-instructional areas such as hallways or closets. A survey commissioned by the National Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities reported that teachers felt that lack of fine arts a ccommodations, small classrooms, and inadequate lab space were deterrents to their job of educating children and job satisfaction (Schneider, 2003). 48
Physical surroundings and conditions impacted job satisfaction (Keller, 2003). When addressing teacher morale and job satisfaction, the work environment played an important role. Teacher morale, job satisfaction, and the work environment could not be separated (Keller, 2003). O’Neill (2000) study in selected Texas middle schools had indicated that teacher satisfaction with physical working conditions was positively correlated with student academic performance. Working conditions improved teach er job satisfaction and directly impacted school effectiveness (O’Neill, 2000). According to Randall, Fedor, and Longenecker (1990), teacher job satisfaction was a multifaceted construct that was critical to school effectiveness, teacher retention as well as teacher commitment. According to Ma and MacMillan (1999), professional teaching competency, administration control, and organizational culture were work place conditions that affected our school facilities and had an impact on students’ learning and academic performance. Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) analyzed factors that could contribute to the commitment of teachers to the workplace. Rosenholtz and Simpson found that the burden of non-teaching obligations affected the commitment of new teachers much more than it does for experienced teachers. Evidence also showed that school management of student behavior also affected the commitment of new teachers more than the commitment of experienced teachers. Teacher Turnover
According to Ingersoll (2001), the contemporary educational theory held that the inability of schools to adequately staff classrooms with qualified teachers was one of the pivotal causes of inadequate school performance. Research had shown (a) which kinds of teachers were prone to leaving the teaching profession and why, (b) that teacher turnover 49
was strongly correlated with individual characteristics of teachers, (c) that teacher turnover was strongly affected by academic field, and (d) that teacher turnover occurred mostly in the subject areas of special education, science, and mathematics (Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997; Ingersoll, 2001; Murnane, Singer, Willett, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991). R esearch had also shown that employee turnover was extensive (Ingersoll, 2001; Mueller & Price, 1990). However, a low level of employee turnover was normal and efficacious in a well-managed organization (Ingersoll, 2001). Ingersoll (2001) explained that the reasons for teacher turnover occurred because of (a) retirement, (b) school staffing action, (c) personal, (d) to pursue other jobs, and (e) dissatisfaction (p. 21). The reasons for dissatisfaction included: (a) inadequate administrative support, (b) poor salary, (c) student discipline problems, (d) lack of facult y influence, (e) lack of student motivation, (f) large class sizes, (g) inadequate time to prepare, (h) unsafe environment, (i) poor opportunity for professional advancement, (j) lack of community support, (k) interference in teaching, (l) lack of professional competence of colleagues, and (m) intrusions on teaching time (Ingersoll, 2001). The Alliance for Excellent Education ([AEE], 2005) reported that the exit of teachers from the teaching profession as well as the movement of teachers to better schools were costly phenomena for both the students, who lost the value of being taught by an experienced teacher, and to the schools and districts, which must recruit and train the teachers’ replacements. The Department of Labor (as cited in AEE, 2005) estimated that the cost of replacing public school teachers who had dropped out of the teaching profession was $2.2 billion a year (p. 1). In the state of Texas, the estimated cost was a half a billion dollars (AEE, 2005). 50
The consensus among educators and researchers was that the most important factor in determining student performance was the quality of his o r her teachers (AEE, 2005). Therefore, it was critical that educators must make ever y effort of developing and retaining high-quality teachers in every community and at every grade level to provide an equitable education to children across the nation. Teachers left the profession because of (a) retirement, (b) lack of planning time, (c) too heavy a workload, (d) problematic student behavior, and (e) lack of influence over school policy (AEE). Many teachers who saw no hope for change in education left the profession altogether. While it was true that teach ers of all ages and in all kinds of schools leave the profession each year, it was also true that the rate of attrition is roughly 50% higher in poor schools than in wealthier ones (AEE, 2005; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003), and teachers new to the profession were far more likely to leave than were their more experienced counterparts (AEE, 200; Ingersoll, 2003). The AEE also reported that all students, in all grades, need qualified, experienced teachers. However, the need for highly qualified, experience teachers was needed more in the high school. High school students were at a high risk of dropping out of school or graduating without the skills they needed to succeed in college or the twenty-first century workforce. These high school students “need the best teachers possible to raise their achievement and attainment levels – to graduate prepared for further training and education, and to become contributing members of society” (AEE, 2005, p. 2). Eller, Doerfler, and Meier (2000), contended that raising teachers’ salary in the state of Texas was a significant step in boosting teacher retention. The Texas legislature understood that the economic trends that they examined, suggested that the teacher shortage could only be eased at the 51
margins by retaining more teachers and recruiting heavily from other states (Eller, Doerfler, & Meier). Two urgent issues that threaten the education of American’s children, our greatest resource, were the high teacher turnover rate and low student academic performance (Terry & Kritsonis, 2005). Teacher turnover was receiving increased attention in education research and policy (Terry & Kritsonis, 2005). Haycock (1998) suggested that teacher turnover was due to teachers either quitting the teaching profession or transferring to a higher performing school, which left low achieving schools with the least qualified. DarlingHammond and Sykes (2003) found that excessive teacher turnover in low-income urban communities appears to have a significant impact on student achievement. School Facilities
In order to meet the mandates of NCLB in improving academic performance, principals and other educational leaders focused more on the curriculum and pedagogy rather than the actual physical environment. Researchers explained that school administrators should have a basic understanding of facility assessment and use this knowledge to evaluate the condition of school buildings and its impact on students’ success (Friedman, Zimring, & Zube, 1978; Foreman, Maiden, & Byford, 1997; Lackney, 1999b; Maiden & Foreman, 1998; Sanoff, 2001). Sanoff (2008) noted that, the school environment affects students’ and teachers’ health, work, leisure, emotions, and a sense of place and belonging. When the school environment worked well, student's lives and educational performance were enhanced. While the school environment was intended to support students’ individual needs, it was necessary to gain knowledge about their diverse needs and how the physical environment 52
satisfies them. “Evaluation is the systematic assessment of environmental performance relative to defined objectives and requirements. The assessment process is a means of providing satisfactory environments for the people who own, manage, and occupy them” (Sanoff, 2008, p. 4). All individuals had a right to a quality educational facility, a physical space that supported multiple and diverse teaching and learning programs and pedagogies, including current technologies; one that demonstrated optimal, co st-effective building performance and operation over time; one that was respected and was in harmony with the environment; and one that encouraged social participation, providing a healthy, comfortable, safe, secure and stimulating setting for its occupants (Directorate for Education [DE], 2008). The DE (2008) contended that there was no single approach to evaluating quality. However, experts had stressed several broad guidelines that should be followed when implementing and defining an evaluation methodology. The approach used should be: (a) multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary, bringing together experts and others from the fields of education, architecture, engineering, child psychology, anthropology, environmental psychology, sociology, and public policy; (b) participatory, ensuring early and continuous feedback with policy-makers, students, teaching and non-teaching staff, parents, educationalists, financial bodies, architects, the media, facilities and asset managers and researchers; (c) holistic, providing a systemic and integrated vision of a built environment throughout all phases of the facility’s − from planning to project delivery to occupation and management − and society’s life cycles; (d) multi-method, incorporating aspects of appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods into the research design; (e) purposeful and valid, having a process, a timeframe and research questions that were clear and objectives that were tangible and ever-present. Evaluators must be neutral, trained and accredited by 53
external authorities; (f) policy-oriented, evaluation must respond to and influence policy (DE, 2008).
Learning Environment and School Building Design
According to the American Federation of Teachers ([AFT], 2008), “unhealthy and unsafe school conditions make it difficult for students to co ncentrate, for teachers to teach, and for staff to do their jobs” (p. 5). School conditions led to lower student attendance and reduced teacher and staff retention, at a time when testing requirements make attendance more important than ever and retaining good teachers was seen as a key ingredient in raising student achievement (AFT, 2008, p. 5). The AFT (2008) reported that providing a healthy environment was actually making schools conducive for learning. Everyone was being held accountable for improved academic performance, the teachers, the students, and the schools. However, if the school facilities were inadequate, it became extremely difficult for academic performance to improve. The AFT (2008) discussed some categories that effected the learning environment: (a) air quality—poor air quality caused illness, such as illness such as asth ma and other illnesses that caused students to have difficulty in con centrating and lower achievement; (b) noise—poor acoustics in classroom that caused classroom disruption and o utside sounds; and (c) overcrowding—increased discipline problems, distractions, and too many students. Chan (1996) suggested that a school facility was a school building that accommodated instructional activities. Therefore, the design of a school building needed to reflect the instructional needs of the school program (Chan, 1996). During the late 1970s and the early 1980s, the physical requirement to facilitate interdisciplinary teaching, team 54
teaching (an instructional methodology), gained popularity (Chan, 1996). School facility planners and educators had to make modifications to existing facilities (Chan, 1996). Both Public Law 94-142, now known as The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that school facilities had to be made accessible for handicapped children. Educators and school systems had to act to meet the requirements of the laws. Renovation at the schools ensured that facilities were brought up to safety standards (Klauke, 1988). Smith (1984) pointed out that, “Facilities should further the academic standards of the school: if they are inadequate or inaccessible, the academic program cannot be wholly successful” (p. 3). Special rooms in the school building needed to be assigned and modified to serve the handicapped situation. Restroom modification, curb-cutting, ramp installation, acoustical control, rails, elevators, and special safety lights are among the most common items for inclusion in facility improvement projects to accommodate the special education program (Chan, 1996). Other educational elements that impacted the school environment and school facilities included: school enrollment, grade classification, space utilization, instructional equipment, extracurricular activities and management changes (Chan, 1996, p. 10). Every time changes were made to these educational elements, appropriate modification to the school facility would need (Chan, 1996).
Characteristics of High Performing Schools
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ([EPA], 2008) reported that high performance schools were facilities that improved the learning environment while saving energy, resources, and money. The key was to understand the lifetime value of high 55
performance schools and effectively managing priorities, time, and budget during the design and construction (EPA). High performance schools referred to the ph ysical facility – the school buildings and grounds. Good teachers and motivated students could overcome inadequate facilities and perform at a high level almost anywhere, but a well-designed facility could truly enhance performance and make education a more enjoyable and rewarding experience (EPA). Educators were asked to examine the quality of research studies as well as to use scientifically based research in relation to the new federal law, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Washington State Department of Education [WSDE], 2003). In order to meet this mandate, there were nine characteristics of high performing school that were integral to school improvement planning. These nine characteristics should be embedded in all stages of the planning and implementation process: (a) clear and shared focus; (b) high standards and expectations for all students; (c) effective school leadership; (d) high levels of collaboration and communication; (e) curriculum, and instruction, and assessment aligned with standards; (f) frequent monitoring of learning and teaching;(g) supportive learning environment; (h) supportive learning environment; and (i) high levels of family and community involvement (WSDE, 2003). Illinois State Department of Education ([ISDE], 2006) reported that a he althy high performing school: (a) improved student academic performance, (b) promoted student and staff health, (c) supported healthy lifestyle choices among students and staff, (d) was costeffective and lowers a building’s operating expenses, (e) reduced a building’ environmental impact and served as a good neighbor, and (f) created a centerpiece for the community. A healthy, high performing school building was an educational facility designed to provide a 56
productive learning environment for students and staff, promoted a healthy lifestyle, save operating costs and help sustain the environment (ISDE, 2006). Healthy, high performing school buildings had a positive effect on student learning (ISDE, 2006).
Recent Studies
Overbaugh (1990) found that the physical environment affected teachers in their professional performance. Teachers ranked classroom equipment, classroom furnishings, and ambient features as the most important environmental features. The study determined the perceptions of teachers on how school facilities affected their ability to function as a professional. The study also revealed that teachers were generally satisfied with all of the physical environmental factors of the instructional areas of their schools. Lackney (1999a) presented a paper to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Science that discussed the impact of educational facilities on student behavior, attitudes, and performance. Lackney (1999a) concluded that school buildings were important to the teaching and learning process. Lackney (1999a) also asserted that there was a relationship between physical characteristics of school buildings and edu cational outcomes. O’Neill (2000) investigated the relationship between student achievement, school facilities, attendance, behavior, and teacher turnov er rate. The study supported the research that school facilities that were well designed and maintained would enhance the learning environment for teachers and students. O’Neill and Oates (2001) explored whether improving school facilities had a positive effect on student behavior, attendance, student learning and teacher turnover rate. O’Neill and Oates found that there was a direct relationship between student achievement and building quality. 57
Earthman (2002) found that school facility conditions do affect student academic achievement. Earthman (2002) concluded that school building design features and components have a measurable influence upon student learning. The TACIR (2003) conducted a study in connection with school facilities, learning and teaching, found that the age of the facility, condition of the facility, thermal factors, visual and lighting, color of the indoor facilities, external noise, and air quality all correlated with positive educational outcomes. Earthman (2004) examined the relationship between building quality and academic outcomes. He found that there was a relationship between building quality and academic outcomes. Further, Earthman (2004) rated temperature, heating, and air quality as the elements that affected student achievement. Hadden (2005) identified features that existed in Georgia’s schools to determine trends in school design. The study examined the physical environment and the functional environment of the schools that included (a) energy efficient, flexible, and sustainable designs; (b) aesthetics; (c) safety; (d) collaboration; (e) classroom space and furnishings; (f) technology; (g) organization of classroom administrative offices, (h) student communal spaces and school grounds; (i) teacher facilities; (j) instructional and social program services and opportunities; (k) classroom instructional opportunities; (l) instructional opportunities and educational programs; (m) organization of instruction; and (n) community or social use. Hadden’s study supported the research that facilities did impact student learning by shaping the environment. Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner, and McCaughey (2005) analyzed twenty-five years of research. Higgins et al. found that most researchers supported the fact that there was a 58
relationship between school quality and student performance. Uline and Tschannen-Moran (2005) examined school climate as the link between school facilities and student achievement. Uline and Tschannen-Moran found positive correlation between a school facility’s condition, school climate, and student achievement. Caddick (2006) presented a paper on the behalf of the National Education Association to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor that discussed the relationship between school building adequacy and student achievement. Caddick findings indicated that quality facilities were related to all of the school climate variables: teacher professionalism, collegial leadership, community engagement, and academic press. McGowen (2007) investigated the relationship between school facility con ditions and school outcomes (student academic achievement, attendance, discipline, completion rate, and teacher turnover rate). McGowen found that student achievement, attendance, and completion rate measure, was not statistically significant in relation to school facility conditions, and discipline or behavior were significantly related to school facility conditions. Teacher turnover rate was related to school facility conditions. Stallings (2008) did a quantitative study that investigated public school facilities and teacher job satisfaction. Stallings explored the difference between t eachers who planned to stay in their current positions and those who planned to leave in terms of their perceptions of the conditions of public school facilities and the availability of resources, including technology. Stallings found that the work environment and the availability of resources did impact the job satisfaction of teachers and that teachers’ work environment might be associated with their decisions to remain in teaching. 59
Bishop (2009) examined three new high schools that opened in the Commonwealth of Virginia between 2006 and 2007. Bishop investigated the relationship between the new high schools and student achievement and staff attitudes and behaviors. Bishop found that improved student behaviors, improved staff and student mo rale, and a lack of belief that the new buildings more positively impacted student achievement than the old buildings.
Summary
A good school facility always supported the educational enterprise (Buckley et al., 2004a). Research had shown that clean and good air quality, good light, a small, quiet comfortable, safe environment, building age and condition, quality of maintenance, temperature, and color, could affect student health, safety as well as a sense of self, and psychological state (Buckley et al., 2004a; Cash, 1993; Chan, 1996, Earthman & Lemasters, 1996; Schneider, 2002; Young et al., 2003). Policymakers should be concerned about the relationship between school facilities and student learning and a chievement, not only because of health, security, and psychological issues, but also because the failure to create and maintain optimum learning environments can undermine other efforts to reform education (Young et al.,). Efforts to improve schools must address and change educators’ beliefs, values, and attitudes. However, these elements of the culture of the school could not be addressed in isolation. Robust educational change required educators to simultaneously attend to the power of existing technical considerations such as schoo l schedules, school size, course sequences, curriculum and instruction as well as the political relations between the school,
60
the broader community, state, and federal policies (Oakes, 2003; Yonezawa, Jones, Mehan, & McClure, 2008). Buckley, Schneider, and Shang (2004c) discussed that improving the quality of school facilities could be expensive. However, they th ey found that the benefits bene fits of facilities improvement for teacher retention could be equal or greater than those from pay raises. Improving the quality of school facilities could be a cost-effective teacher retention strategy than a salary increase for teachers (Buckley et al., 2004c). Research had shown that there was a relationship between school building condition and student achievement (Cash, 1993; Earthman, 2002, 2004; Earthman & Lemasters, 1996; Hines, 1996; O’Neill, 2000; Schneider, 2002).
61
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this mixed methods study stud y was to examine the impact of the quality of facilities on the educational environment in high schools located in northeast Texas. Tex as. The intent of this research study was to determine the relationship between school facilities and the school-learning environment. The researcher identified what asp ects of school facility design that would have the greatest potential potential to impact student learning. learning. The findings of this study had implications for setting policies and practices regarding the funding formula, planning, and design of school scho ol facility renovation or construction of new school buildings. Enrollment in the school districts was increasing. Therefore, the school districts must provide more space for the increasing enrollment and focus on the educational environment. The researcher also discussed the building design and what factors impacted student performance. A mixed method research study was conducted to gather data on examining the impact of the quality of a facility on the learning environment. According to the California Department of Education (2007), report on the impact of school facilities, school facilities had a direct affect on student and staff attendance, student performance, teachers’ retention, student disruptions, curriculum offerings, and the extent of local school program innovations. The overall impact a school building had on students could be positive or negative, depending upon the condition of the school (Earthman, 2002).
Research Questions
These questions guided this research study:
62
R1 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and achievement, and teacher turnover rate as characterized by the Total Learning Environment Environment Assessment Assessment (TLEA)?
R2 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on 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 school climate and school culture as characterized by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Secondary Schools Schools
(OCDQS)?
Methodology
This study was a mixed method research, investigating the impact of school facilities on student achievement and performance, school climate and school culture, teacher retention, the learning environment, and school building design. This research design was most appropriate for this research study given its goals and purpose (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2006). This research study examined the impact of the quality of a facility on the educational environment in high schools located in school districts in northeast Texas. The participants were the high school principals, assistant principals, or designees, and the 63
teachers. The principals, the assistant principals, or designees were the most qualified to evaluate the physical plant of the school in regards to its possible impact upon student performance and achievement, and teacher retention (McGowen, 2007). Tashakkori and Creswell (2004) described mixed method, as research in which an investigator collected and analyzed data, drew inferences using both quantitative and qualitative methods, and integrated the findings in a single study. Bryman (1992) suggested that mixed method facilitated access to fieldwork sites: qualitative findings about participants’ norms and behaviors, and could guide decisions about the judicious use of quantitative methods. Johnson and Christensen (n. d.) pointed out that mixed research was the newest and third paradigm. According to Johnson and Christensen (n. d.), the researcher usually mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches in a way that works best for the given research question being studied in a particular context. Mixed method research (a) used both deductive and inductive methods, (b) attempted to corroborate and complement findings, (c) used both quantitative and qualitative data, and (d) took a balanced approach to research (Johnson & Christensen, n. d.). Research study questionnaires were used to obtain data that described the school facility and its learning environment, and school climate. The questionnaire items were directly associated with the school facility and the learning environment of the school, and the school climate.
64
Research Design and Procedures
This study was a mixed method research design, investigating the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. The learning environment included student performance and achievement, the school climate and school culture, and the teacher turnover rate. The high school principals and the high school assistant principals or designees were asked to evaluate the condition of the high school facilities. The teachers were asked to evaluate the school climate and school culture in the high school facilities. According to Yin (2006), when using mixed method research within the confines of a single study, mixed method research could simultaneously broaden and strengthen the study. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) defined mixed method research as research that combined quantitative and qualitative research metho ds in a single study. Chen (2006) defined mixed method research as the systematic combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in research. Creswell and Plano-Clark (2007) defined mixed method research as a research design, methodology or methods, with philosophical assumptions, or methods of inquiry that guides the direction of the collection and analysis of data with the mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches in the research process. Mixed method research also focused on the collection, analysis, and the mix of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007). In a mixed method research study, the researcher collected data using a questionnaire and follow up with interviews with a few individuals who may have participated in the questionnaire to learn more details about the questionnaire responses (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007).
65
Hunt (2007) contended that a mixed method research design included quantitative and qualitative research, techniques, data, and methods. This method design used mixed data numbers, text, statistics, and text analysis (Hunt, 2007). Hunt (2007) also contended that the validity and accuracy of information that mixed research generates increase when the researcher used a mixed method approach of evaluation and gathering. The researcher used questionnaires for this research study to collect data. Wasson (2002) asserted that mixed method research involved the collection of data in order to answer questions or test hypothesis about the current status of the participants or subjects of the research study. In mixed method research, the researcher used a questionnaire to gather the data for the research study (Wasson, 2002). Wasson (2002) also contended “a questionnaire is an attempt to collect data from members of a population in order to determine the current status of that population with respect to one or more variables” (p. 2). According to Johnson and Christensen (n. d.), there were two types of mixed research, mixed methods and mixed model research. In mixed method research, the researcher used quantitative research paradigm for one phase of the study and used qualitative research for the other phase of the study (Johnson & Christensen, n. d.). In mixed model research, the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative research across two or more of the stages in the research process (Johnson & Christensen, n. d.). Mixed method research was the most appropriate research design in studying the relationship existing between the school facility and the quality of learning on the educational environment. McNabb (2004) asserted that questionnaires were used to generate answers to specific questions about opinions, attitudes, knowledge, motivations, demographics, or other 66
categories of data. Questionnaires were used in quantitative research projects in descriptive research (McNabb, 2004). According to McNabb (2004), questionnaires were designed to (a) gather information from and group of respondents, and (b) determine what people knew, what they thought, or how they acted, or planned to act. The researcher used interviews also to collect data. Jefferies (1999) asserted that interviews provided (a) greater confidentiality possible because of personal con tact, (b) flexibility to give follow-up questions, (c) opportunity to clarify questions, (d) could jud ge adequacy (honesty) of replies, and (e) higher return rate (p. 4). Knupfer and McLellan (n. d.) noted that interviews allowed the researcher to obtain more in-depth information. Therefore, a mixed method research design was most appropriate for this research study to investigate the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. This research study focused on how the physical environment impacted and enhanced student learning in a high school located in a school district in northeast Texas. This research study was conducted during the 2009-2010 school year. Data on the building facility conditions was taken from the high school during the spring 2009 semester using a research questionnaire developed and utilized by O’Neill (2000) in a similar study of the middle schools in Texas and McGowen (2007) in similar study of the high schools in Texas. Data on student performance and achievement and teacher turnover rate was acquired from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website and the TEA Division of Communication and Public Information, and the reports that had been generated by the school district office for 2007-2008 academic years. Data on the school climate and school culture were acquired from a questionnaire developed and utilized by Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991) and Kottkamp, Mulhern, and Hoy (1987) for secondary schools. Data 67
pertaining to teacher turnover rate were provided for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 20072008 school years. The design of this research study allowed for a comparison of student performance and achievement, school climate and school culture, and teacher turnover rate with ratings of school facilities.
Population and Sampling Procedures
The setting of this research study was in high schools, grades 9-12, located in school districts in northeast Texas. The participants were the principals, assistant principals, or designees, and teachers. The principals and the assistant principals could evaluate the physical plant of the high school in regards to how the school facilities impact student performance and achievement, the school climate and school culture, and teacher retention and teacher turnover. The teachers could evaluate the school climate in regards to how the school climate affected the physical structure of the school building and the interactions between students, administrators, and teachers. The principal, assistant principals, and teachers were asked to participate in the research study.
Instrumentation
Based on research and review of literature, questionnaires were used to collect data. Gall et al. (2007) asserted that the use of questionnaires was appropriate in providing valid assessment of variables to be studied. O’Neill (2000) (as cited in McGowen, 2007) contended that there are several advantages of using questionnaires in research (a) the questionnaire was an efficient way of reaching a wide range of the population, (b) the
68
questionnaire was less expensive, and (c) the stimuli provided to the participants in the study were consistent and opportunities for uncensored responses are greater. Informed Consent Letter
Administrators and teachers were given an Informed Consent letter (see Append ix A) asking them to participate in the research study. The questionnaires were strictly confidential, and names were not used when the research study was reported or published. According to the United States Office for Human Research Protection (as cited in Social Psychology Network, 2009), the Code of Federal Regulations required that certain information were provided to research subjects before the y participate in study. Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire (see Appendix B) 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. The collection of this type information provided greater opportunity to disaggregate the information. Total Learning Environment Assessment High School Version (TLEA)
The Total Learning Environment Assessment High School Version (TLEA) (see Appendix E) questionnaire was used to access the quality and educational effectiveness of the school facility. O’Neill (2000) developed the TLEA to use in a similar study in the Austin, Texas middle schools. The TLEA was derived and based from the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International’s (CEFPI) Guide for School Facility Appraisal 69
(Hawkins & Lilley, 1998). According to O’Neill (2000), the CEFPI developed the Guide to provide an instrument for school personnel to use that would systematically assess the quality and educational effectiveness of school facilities. Written permission to use the TLEA (see Appendix C) and the CEFPI Guide (see Appendix D) in this research study was obtained in February 2009. The first section of the TLEA utilized questions that pertained to the age of the facility, recent renovations, involvement of school instructional personnel in the planning process in the design of the building, the degree in which the instructional philosophy was integrated into the learning environment, and the use of portable buildings (if any) for classroom space. The second section of the TLEA dealt with Educational Adequacy. This section also contained the original CEFPI subsections, Academic Learning Space, Specialized Learning Space, and Support Space. O’Neill (2000) used the CEFPI items and additional questions for the Austin middle school study. O’Neill (2000) ad ded a subsection, Community/Parent Space. The Educational Adequacy section used a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1-4, indicating a response of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The third section of the TLEA dealt with Environment for Education, consisting of
thirty-five items. The subsections Exterior Environment and Interior Environment were from the original CEFPI survey. O’Neill (2000) added a third subsection Visual Reinforcement. The Environment for Education section used a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 1-4, indicating Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools
The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools
70
(OCDQ-RS) (Appendix F) 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 is a 34item climate instrument with five dimensions describing the behavior of second ary principals and teachers. 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). The questionnaire included principal behaviors: supportive principal - set good example through hard work, motivated teachers by constructive criticism, was helpful and trustworthy, and directive principal - close and con stant control of all teachers and school activities down to the smallest detail (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). Teacher behaviors: engaged - reflected high morale among the faculty, trust in each other, and a commitment to the success of all students; frustrated - led to a faculty that felt burdened with routine administrative paperwork and responsibilities not related to teaching; intimate - reflected a strong and cohesive network of social relations among the faculty (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). The response format for all items was a four-point Likert scale measuring frequency of the perceived behavior: Rarely Occurs, Sometimes Occurs, Often Occurs, and Very Frequently Occurs. All responses were
voluntary and the principal, assistant principal, and teachers agreed to participate in the
71
study. Written permission to use the OCDQ-RS in this research study was obtained in February 2009. The questionnaires were used to gather data from the principals, assistant principals, and teachers at high schools located in school districts in northeast Texas. The questionnaires were reviewed and approved by the researcher’s committee members to ensure that the questionnaires produced the necessary information needed for the study. Once the questionnaires had been developed, experienced practitioners should review the questionnaire to ensure that the items were unambiguous and would educe the necessary information for the research study (Gall et al., 2003; Postlewaite, 2005). Two sources of primary data were used in the study. The sources were questionnaires and interviews. Livesey (n. d.) contended that any data that was collected personally by a researcher is considered to be primary data. Questionnaires and interviews were considered as primary data (Livesey, n. d.). Interview Questions
Interviews were used in this research study. The researcher interviewed the teachers. The researcher used open-ended questions (see Appendix G) in the interviews that were used in McGowen’s (2007) research study, with the approval of the researcher’s committee members. Interviews allowed the researcher to gather historical information that cannot be seen. Teachers had the opportunity to give their opinions or comments on the possible relationship between building design/condition, student achievement, school climate, and teacher retention.
72
Kvale (1996) noted that the qualitative research interview sought to describe the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects. The main task in interviewing was to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say (Kvale, 1996). McNamara (1999) pointed out that interviews were particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences. The interviewer co uld pursue in-depth information around the topic. Interviews were useful as follow-up to certain respondents to questionnaires, (e.g., to further investigate their responses) (McNamara, 1999). McNamara (1999) also asserted that in standardized, open-ended interview the same open-ended questions were asked to all interviewees (an open-en ded question was where respondents were free to choose how to answer the question, i.e., they don't select yes or no or provide a numeric rating, etc.); this approach facilitated faster interviews that could be more easily analyzed and compared.
Validity and Reliability
Researchers needed to be able (a) to understand the usefulness of the data that was gathered, (b) to know how accurate a picture of the information was gathered, (c) to know whether or not conclusions drawn were applicable to everyone or simply of the representatives of a group, and (d) to know if the research could be replicated and would others get similar results if the study was repeated (Livesey, n. d.). Th ere were two concepts that were used in research to test the usefulness of the data that was collected, reliability and validity (Livesey). If the data were not reliable, th en the conclusions that were drawn based on the data would be useless. Data must be reliable in order for the same results to be gained by different researchers when asking the same questions to the same people (Livesey). 73
Data were only useful if it measured what it claimed to be measuring. Therefore, the concept of validity referred to the extent to which the data was collected would give a true measurement (Livesey, n. d.). In measurement theory, a measurement (survey or questionnaire) was considered reliable if it produced consistent results over repeated test settings (Rindskopf, 2001). The Total Learning Environment Assessment High School Version
Through the review of literature on facility assessment and through a review by a panel of experts, content validity was established fo r the TLEA (Hawkins & Lilley, 1998; McGowen, 2007; O’Neill, 2000). O’Neill (2000) asked an expert panel, who consisted of one practicing architect and two college professors, to review the TLEA for content v alidity. Based upon the suggestions of the expert panel, adjustments were made to the questionnaire (McGowen, 2007; O’Neill, 2000). O’Neill (2000) also pretest the TLEA for his study of Austin area middle schools. According to Carmines and Zeller (1991), content validity was based on the extent to which measurement reflected the specific intended domain of content. AllPsych Online (2003) asserted that content validity was concerned with the test’s ability to represent or include all of the content of a particular construct. There is no easy way to determine content validity aside from expert opinion (AllPsych Online, 2003). The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools
According to Hoy et al. (1991), the OCDQ-RS was reliable and valid. The five factors of the OCDQ-RS pilot data and the final data set supported the stability of the factor structures and the construct validity of the dimensions and constitutive meanings of the constructs (Hoy et al., 1991). The OCDQ-RS questionnaire had been tested with a sample of 74
schools to demonstrate the stability factor structure to confirm validity and reliability of its subtests, and to explore its second-order factor structure (Hoy et al.,1991). Interview Questions
O’Neill (2000) noted that content validity should be established. A panel of high school principals reviewed the interview questions to establish content validity. The researcher’s committee members reviewed and approved the interview questions to ensure that the interview questions produced the necessary information needed for this study. Changes could be made to improve the interview questions after the committee’s input.
Data Collection and Procedures
The researcher collected the data from high schools located in school districts in northeast Texas. The Total Learning Environment Assessment High School Version (TLEA), the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQ-RS), the demographic questionnaire, and the interview questions were submitted to the researcher’s committee members for their approval. After the approval of the researcher’s committee members, the TLEA, OCDQ-RS, demographic questionnaires, and interview questions were sent to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Capella University requesting permission to collect research data from human subjects. After the approval of the IRB, the researcher met with the superintendents of the school districts, principal and assistant principal of the high school to provi de a brief overview of the proposed study, the Informed Consent letter, explained any anticipated risks, and provide copies of the questionnaires that were administered at the high school to collect data. The teachers were sent the Informed Consent letter asking them to participate in 75
this research study. The letter provided and explained the purpose of the research study and the assurance of confidentiality. The questionnaire was distributed at a scheduled faculty meeting at the discretion of the principal. 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, (h) primary teaching position, (i) number of years teaching/working und er the current principal, and (j) primary certification. The collection of this type information provided greater opportunity to disaggregate the information. Interviews were used in this research study. The researcher interviewed the teachers. The researcher used open-ended questions in the interviews that were used in McGowen’s (2007) research study, with the approval of the researcher’s committee members. Interviews allowed the researcher to gather historical information that cannot be seen. Data necessary for a statistical comparison to the TLEA scores were obtained from the TEA. Scores for student performance and achievement were gathered from TEA’s website through Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reported 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 were calculated on the instructional staff at the high school. The turnover rate d ata were gathered from the Texas Education Agency Division of Communication and Public Information for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years. 76
Data Analysis Procedures
This research was conducted as a mixed method study that used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Data were collected using basic research methodology that was described in Education Research: an Introduction (Gall et al., 2007). Analysis results came from basic statistical methods that were described and outlined in Statistical Methods for Psychology (Howell, 2006).
The results from the questionnaires, Total Learning Environment Assessment High School Version (TLEA) and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQ-RS) were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows© Version 17.0 were 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. The results of the study were reported using numerical and graphic techniques to report descriptive statistics (e.g., means, frequencies, percentages, and standard deviation, etc.). Graphs and tables were used to present the findings. Descriptive statistical comparisons and analyses were used to show the relationship of variables in the study. The dependent variables of student achievement and performance and teacher turnover rate were compared to those sections and subsections of the TLEA questionnaire that measures school facilities. The dependent variable of school climate and school culture was compared to those sections and subsections of the OCDQ-RS questionnaire that measured school climate and school culture and school facilities. Data collected in the interviews were consolidated
77
into one single document and were used as personal testimony regarding the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. Using means and standard deviations, variables were measured on a continuous scale of measurement to summarize. The distribution for responses to each of the subsections of the TLEA was measured. Multiple regression models were derived using combinations of the subsections of the TLEA. An anal ysis of data consisted of running Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) calculations between dependent variables and the subsections of the TLEA. The data for student performance and achievement were further divided into scores with Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores of TAKS Langua ge Arts, TAKS Math, TAKS Science, TAKS Social Studies, and TAKS All. An analysis of data consisted of coefficient scores of the regression model for the comparison of TAKS Language Arts, TAKS Math, TAKS Science, and TAKS Social Studies with the two subsections Educational Adequacy and Environment for Education on the TLEA. Multiple regression models were used with the subsections of the TLEA with the three-year average teacher turnover rates. A single score represented the variable for the teacher turnover rate. Research Question 1
Research Question # 1 focused on the extent of quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities on the learning environment, student performance and achievement, and teacher turnover rate as characterized by the TLEA. Variables were measured as categorical – nominal or ordinal scales of measurement, using percentages and frequencies. The researcher analyzed the distribution of scores that showed the descriptive statistics for each subsection of the TLEA. 78
Research Question 2
Research Question # 2 focused on the extent of quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities had on student performance and achievement as characterized by the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS). Multiple regression models were used with the learning environment from the AEIS reports as the dependent variable and sections of of the TLEA as the independent variable. Research Question 3
Research Question # 3 focused on the extent of quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities had on teacher turnover rate as characterized by the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). Multiple regression models were used with the three-year average of teacher turnover rates from PEIMS reports as the dependent variable and sections of the TLEA, as the independent variable was studied. Research Question 4
Research Question # 4 focused on the extent of quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities had on school climate and school culture as characterized by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Secondary Schools Schools (OCDQ-RS).
Multiple regression models were derived using school climate and cu lture scores as the dependent variable as reported by b y the subsections and sections of the OCDQ-RS as the independent variable.
Ethical Considerations
This study used every precaution to ensure that the confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy of the data and the participants involved as ethically possible. No et hical issues 79
occurred because there was no exchange of money. An informed consent form was given to all participants in the study. According to Sparknotes Sparkn otes (2009), researchers must get informed consent from their subjects before implementing research. “Informed consent means that subjects must know enough about the research to decide whether to participate, and they must agree to participate voluntarily” (Sparknotes, 2009, p. 1). There were no a detrimental risks, unwarranted discomfort, distress, harm or danger, associated with this research. Participants could withdraw from the study at any time if they wish to stop participating. Data were shared with th e participants if they desire to know the results the data generated from the study. All information that was collected was secured to ensure the privacy of any an y personal information.
Summary
This research study examined the impact of quality qu ality public school facilities on the educational environment in a high school located in a school district in northeast Texas. The researcher identified what aspects of school s chool facility design had the greatest potential to impact student learning. learning. The findings of this research 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. b uildings. The findings in this research study provided data on the relationship between school facility and learning environment and how growing school districts d istricts can effectively address or plan for students’ learning needs with the appropriate facilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the quality of facilities on the educational environment in a high school located in a school district in northeast 80
Texas. This study was a mixed method research, investigating the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. The learning environment included student performance and achievement, the school climate and school culture, and teacher retention and teacher turnover. The high school principal and the high school assistant principal were asked to evaluate the condition of the high school facilities. The teachers were asked to evaluate the school climate and school culture. This study used questionnaires and interviews to collect quan titative and qualitative data. According to McNabb (2004), questionnaires and interviews were the most common way to collect information for mixed method research. Questionnaires and interviews were used singly or in combinations, depending on the research question that was addressed (McNabb, 2004). The educational process was a very complex system (Filardo, 2008). Improving school facilities, the effect on learning, and the educational environment, played an integral role in educators improving the education of the students and providing good school facilities (Filardo, 2008).
81
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the quality of facilities on the educational environment in a high school located in a school district in northeast Texas. This study utilized mixed method research, in order to investigate the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. The learning environment included student performance and achievement, the school climate and school culture, and teacher turnover. The high school principal, high school assistant principal, curriculum director, and the superintendent were asked to evaluate the condition of the high school facilities using the Total Learning Environment Assessment (TLEA). The teachers were asked to evaluate the school climate and school culture using the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQS). Survey data were collected from a total of 16 teachers based on the OCDQS and a total of three administrators based on the TLEA. Student achievement and teacher turnover rate was determined based on archival data. The purpose of this chapter is to present the data analysis findings in order to determine the extent to which the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and achievement, and teacher turnover rate. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed:
82
R1 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on student performance and achievement as characterized by the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)? R2 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)? R3 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on school climate and school culture as characterized by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQS)? This chapter is comprised of four major sections. The first section provides the descriptive data pertaining to the characteristics of the research sample, which was determined by the demographic questionnaire. The second section provides a detailed overview of the data analysis procedures that were used to address the research questions associated with the study. The third section provides the results of the data analyses and therefore specifically addresses each research question. The fourth and final section provides an overall summary of the research findings.
Demographic Description
This section of the chapter provides a description of the research sample. Teachers were asked to respond to several demographic items including their gender, ethnicity, a ge, highest degree earned, teaching experience, primary teaching position, primary certification, number of years teaching at the current school, number of principals in which they worked 83
under during their career, and number of years working under the current principal at their school. The results in Table 1 indicated that there were six male participants (37.5%) and 10 female participants (62.5%) who completed the OCDQS.
Table 1. Gender Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
6
37.5%
Female
10
62.5%
Total
16
100.0%
The racial composition of the sample is provided in Table 2. The results indicate that the racial composition of the sample was relatively homogeneous in that 15 of the 16 teachers who completed the survey identified themselves as White (93.8%) and only one teacher identified herself as American Indian (6.2%).
Table 2. Racial Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample Ethnicity
Frequency
Percent
White
15
93.8%
American Indian
1
6.3%
Total
16
100.0%
The age composition of the research sample of teachers is provided in Table 3. The results indicate that teachers were most likely to be either between 30 and 39 (31.3%) or
84
between 40 and 49 (years of age 31.3%). However, teacher age ranged from under 30 years to 60 years and over.
85
Table 3. Age Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample Age
Frequency
Percent
No response
1
6.3%
Under 30
2
12.5%
30-39
5
31.3%
40-49
5
31.3%
50-59
1
6.3%
60 and above
2
12.5%
16
100.0%
Total
The educational attainment of the research sample of teachers is provided in Table 4. The results indicate that the vast majority of the te achers held a bachelor’s degree (87.5%) at the time of the study and the remaining two (12.5%) held master’s degrees
Table 4. Educational Attainment of Teachers in the Research Sample Educational attainment
Frequency
Percent
Bachelor's degree
14
87.5%
Master's degree
2
12.5%
Total
16
100.0%
The teaching experience of the teacher participants is summarized in Table 5. The results indicate that the teachers were most likely to have between zero and five years or between 6 and 12 years of experience (31.3%). However, there were several teachers with more than 12 years of experience (37.5%). 86
Table 5. Teaching Experience of Teachers in the Research Sample Teaching experience
Frequency
Percent
0-5 years
5
31.3%
6-12 years
5
31.3%
13-20 years
3
18.8%
21-25 years
2
12.5%
30 + years
1
6.3%
Total
16
100.0%
The number of years at the current school is summarized in Table 6. The results indicate that teachers were most likely to have between zero and five years of experience at their current school (56.3%). However, as much as 31.3% was between 6 and 12 years. Finally, 12.5% had between 13 and 20 years of experience at their current school.
Table 6. Number of Years at Current School for Teachers in the Research Sample Years at current school
Frequency
Percent
0-5 years
9
56.3%
6-12 years
5
31.3%
13-20 years
2
12.5%
21-25 years
0
0.0%
30 + years
0
0.0%
Total
16
100.0%
87
The primary teaching position summarized in Table 7 indicates that the most represented position was mathematics (25.0%). However, there were several positions represented in this sample.
Table 7. Primary Teaching Position for Teachers in the Research Sample Primary position
Frequency
Percent
District librarian
1
6.3%
English
2
12.5%
Family consumer sciences
1
6.3%
Fine Arts
1
6.3%
Health/physical education
1
6.3%
Mathematics
4
25.0%
Science
2
12.5%
Social studies
1
6.3%
Technology education
1
6.3%
Trade & industry
2
12.5%
Total
16
100.0%
Table 8 provides a summary of the teachers’ primary area of certification. The results indicate that again, mathematics was the most common (25.0%) followed by English language arts (18.8%). Two of the teachers were provisional (12.6%) and one of them indicated that he was going for certification in social studies.
88
Table 8. Primary Area of Certification of Teachers in the Research Sample Primary position
Frequency
Percent
Agricultural science
1
6.3%
Animal science
1
6.3%
Computer science
1
6.3%
English language arts
3
18.8%
Fine arts in education
1
6.3%
History
1
6.3%
Mathematics
4
25.0%
Provisional
1
6.3%
Provisional in social studies
1
6.3%
Science
2
12.5%
Total
16
100.0%
Finally, teachers were asked how many principals they worked under and how many years they have worked for their current principal. The summarized responses in Table 9 indicate that teachers worked for one to five principals with the mean number being 2.75. Therefore on average, the teachers in this sample worked for approximately three principals. The results also indicate that the number of years with the current principal ranged from two to eight with a mean of 3.12 years.
Table 9. Number of Principals and Number of Years Under Current Principal Source
Minimum Maximum
Mean
SD
Number of principals
1
5
2.75
1.18
Number of years with current principal
2
8
3.12
1.93
89
Data Analysis
The survey data were entered into Microsoft Excel (2007) and uploaded into SPSS (Version 17.0) for scoring and analysis. Once the survey data were scored, dimension scores for the TLEA and the OCDQS were created by averaging all of the items associated with a given dimension. The TLEA resulted in seven dimensions, which include (a) academic learning space, (b) specialized learning space, (c) support space, (d) community/parent space, (e) exterior environment, (f) interior environment and (g) visual reinforcement. The OCDQS resulted in two principal-related dimensions, which include (a) supportive principal and (b) directive principal, and three teacher-related dimension, which include (a) engaged, (b) frustrated and (c ) intimate. The archival student achievement data and the teacher turnover data were entered into Microsoft Excel (2007) and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Since the quality and educational adequacy of the educational facilities was the independent variable in this study, the responses on the TLEA were descriptively analyzed and compared to the longitudinal student achievement data, the longitudinal teacher turnover rates and the summarized survey responses provide by the teachers on the OCDQS. All of the data sources were analyzed by using descriptive statistics such as percentages, means, minimum values, maximum values and standard deviations. The first research question was addressed by plotting the student achievement results in a time series chart so that student performance before the new facility (2003-2004) could be compared to performance post the new facility. In addition, student performance post the new facility was averaged in order to compute a mean student performance measure to be 90
compared to the baseline number (2003-2004). The percent of students passing each core subject area on the TAKS from the baseline period was compared to the mean percent during the post period (2004-2005 through 2008-2009) using a z-test for proportions. The ztest for proportions is used to determine if two proportions or percenta ges are statistically significantly different (Sprinthall, 2007). Statistical significance was determined by an alpha of .05. The second research question was addressed by plotting the teacher turnover rates in a time series chart so that teacher turnover before the new facility (2003-2004) could be compared to teacher turnover post the new facility. In addition, teacher turnover rates post the new facility was averaged in order to compute a mean teacher turnover measure to be compared to the baseline number (2003-2004). The percent of teachers turning over from the baseline period was compared to the mean percent during the post period (2004-2005 through 2008-2009) using a z-test for proportions. Again, statistical significance was determined by an alpha of .05. The third and final research question was addressed by comparing the descriptive findings from the OCDQS to the descriptive findings from the TAKS. In addition, the responses provided from the interview were used to help determine the effect of the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities on the learning environment.
Results
This section of the chapter provides the data analysis results in order to address each research question. However, before each research question is addressed, the descriptive findings from the TLEA are presented. The descriptive results from the TLEA are 91
presented first given that the TLEA is relevant when addressing all of the research questions. Research Question 1
The first research question examined the extent to which the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and achievement, and teacher turnover rate as characterized by the TLEA. Three administrators provided data relating to the TLEA. The Likert-scale survey responses ranged from a low of one (strongly disagree ) to a high of four ( strongly agree ). Higher values indicate more favorable perceptions. The summarized results are provided in Table 10. The results indicate that the mean scores show levels of general agreement that the educational facilities are adequate. None of the minimum scores reflected general disagreement while the maximum scores tended to show relatively strong agreement and therefore favorable appraisals of the educational facilities. The results in Table 10 also indicate that the area with the highest (most favorable ) mean rating was the exterior environment (3.50) and the area with the lowest (least favorable) mean rating was support space (2.97). Furthermore, the area in which
administrators’ perceptions were most similar was support space given that the standard deviation for that particular area was smallest (0.15). Overall, these survey results support the researcher’s assumption that the new facility (2004-2005) resulted in a dequate to high quality educational facilities.
92
Table 10. Mean Total Learning Environment Assessment Scores Source
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Academic learning space
2.63
3.44
3.10
0.43
Specialized learning space
2.63
3.69
3.23
0.55
Support space
2.80
3.10
2.97
0.15
Community/parent space
3.00
3.83
3.33
0.44
Exterior environment
3.00
4.00
3.50
0.50
Interior environment
2.83
3.91
3.23
0.59
Visual reinforcement
2.75
3.50
3.00
0.43
In addition to the likert-scale survey items measuring the quality of the facilities, the administrators were also asked five questions about the facility. The first question asked about the age of the participants facility.
Table 11. Age of Facility Age of facility
Frequency
Percent
Under 10 years old
3
100.0%
10-19 years old
0
0.0%
20-29 years old
0
0.0%
30-39 years old
0
0.0%
40-49 years old
0
0.0%
50-59 years old
0
0.0%
60 years or older
0
0.0%
Total
3
100.0%
93
Administrators were also asked how long ago their facility was renovated.
Table 12. Years Last Renovation of the Facility Most recent renovation
Frequency
Percent
Never renovated
0
0.0%
Less than 5 years ago
0
0.0%
5-9 years ago
3
100.0%
10-19 years ago
0
0.0%
20-29 years ago
0
0.0%
30 or more years ago
0
0.0%
Total
3
100.0%
The next question asked administrators to indicate the ex tent to which the school instructional personnel were involved in the planning process with building designers at the time of the renovation. The summarized responses in Table 13 indicate that two of the three administrators did not know (66.7%) and one indicated that school instructional personnel were not at all involved (33.3%).
Table 13. Extent of Involvement of School Instructional Personnel in Renovation Personnel involvement Frequency Percent Unknown
2
66.7%
Not at all
1
33.3%
Limited extent
0
0.0%
To some extent
0
0.0%
To a great extent
0
0.0%
Total
3
100.0% 94
The next question asked administrators to indicate the degree to which the instructional philosophy of their campus is integrated into the learning environment. The summarized responses in Table 14 indicate that two of the three administrators said to a great extent (66.7%) and one said to some extent (33.3%).
Table 14. Degree Instructional Philosophy is Integrated into the Learning Environment Instructional philosophy
Frequency
Percent
Unknown
0
0.0%
Not at all
0
0.0%
Limited extent
0
0.0%
To some extent
1
33.3%
To a great extent
2
66.7%
Total
3
100.0%
The last question asked administrators if portable buildings were utilized as classrooms on their campus. The summarized responses in Table 15 indicate the three administrators said that no portable buildings were used as classrooms on camp us (100.0%).
Table 15. Portable Buildings Utilized as Classrooms on C ampus Portable buildings
Frequency
Percent
Yes
0
00.0%
No
3
100.0%
Total
3
100.0%
95
Research Question 2
The second research question examined the extent to which the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on student performance and achievement as characterized by the AEIS. The student performance outcomes by subject area are presented in Table 16. The results are provided for the baseline year (2003-2004) and the overall (mean) performance for the post period (20042005 through 2008-2009). The results indicate that student performance was higher after the new facility in all four subjects and when considering all tests combined. The largest increase in student performance was seen for mathematics (22.0%) and the smallest increase was seen for English language arts (2.8%); however English language arts performance was high prior to the new facility. These results also indicate that while only 48.0% of students passed all of the tests before the new facility, 65.0% of the students since the new facility passed all four tests.
Table 16. Mean Student Performance by Subject Area: Before and After New Facility Period
ELA
Mathematics
Science
Social studies
All tests
Before
90.0%
51.0%
69.0%
88.0%
48.0%
After
92.8%
73.0%
75.8%
93.6%
65.0%
Growth
2.8%
22.0%
6.8%
5.6%
17.0%
Figure 1 illustrates the trend lines in student performance by subject area. Again, 2003-2004 was the baseline year, which represents student performance prior to the new facility. The results in Figure 1 indicate that student performance increased from 2003-2004 96
in all subject areas with the exception of English/language arts. Overall, English language arts performance has remained relatively stable.
100%
90%
80%
g n i s s a p s t n e d u t s f o t n e c r e P
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 2 00 3- 20 04
2 00 4- 20 05
ELA
Mathematics
2 00 5- 20 06 Science
2 00 6- 20 07
2 00 7- 20 08
Social studies
2 00 8- 20 09
All tests
Figure 1. Percentage of students passing
The time series chart illustrates the performance trend lines based on 9 th through 12th grade student performance as measured by the percentage of students passing the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). In order to determine if the difference in student performance before vs. after the new facility was statistically significant, a z-test for proportions was conducted. The results in Table 17 indicate that the increase in English language arts was not statistically significant, z = -1.14, p = .254; the increase in 97
mathematics was statistically significant, z = -5.17, p < .001; the increase in science was marginally significant, z = -1.73, p = .084; the increase in social studies was statistically significant, z = -2.21, p = .027; and the increase in all tests was statistically significant, z = 3.91, p < .001.
Table 17. Student Achievement Comparison z-Test Results Source
Before
After
z
p
English language arts
90%
93%
-1.14
0.254
Mathematics
51%
73%
-5.17
< .001
Science
69%
76%
-1.73
0.084
Social studies
88%
94%
-2.21
0.027
All tests
48%
65%
-3.91
< .001
The results for research question one indicate that the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities was associated with a statistically significant increase in the percent of students passing the mathematics and social studies portion of the TAKS, and a significant increase in overall test performance. The results also indicate that the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities was associated with a marginally significant increase in the percent of students passing the science portion of the TAKS. Research Question 3
The third research question examined the extent to which the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on teacher turnover rates as characterized by the PEIMS. Teacher turnover rates are presented in Table 18. The results are provided for the baseline year (2003-2004) and the overall (mean) turnover rate for the post period (2004 98
2005 through 2008-2009). The results indicate that the teacher turnover rate was lower after the new facility. The turnover rate in 2003-2004 was 16.7% and the mean turnover rate from 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 was 5.8%, which is a decrease of 10.9%.
Table 18. Mean Teacher Turnover Rate: Before and After New Facility Source
Before
After
Difference
Teacher turnover rate
16.7%
5.8%
-10.9%
Figure 2 shows the trend line for teacher turnover rate. The results indicate that the turnover rate dropped drastically after the new facility was provided. In addition, the turnover rate remained low until 2008-2009 where it increased sharply. The turnover rate in 2008-2009 was still noticeably lower than the year prior to the new facility (2003-2004).
20% 18% 16% r e v o 14% g n i n r 12% u t s r e h 10% c a e t f 8% o t n e c r 6% e P
4% 2% 0% 2 00 3-2 00 4
2 00 4-2 00 5
2 00 5-2 00 6
2 00 6-2 00 7
Teacher turnover
Figure 2. Percentage of teacher turnover
99
2 00 7-2 00 8
2 00 8-2 00 9
The time series chart illustrates the teacher turnover rate trend line. In order to determine if the difference in teacher turnover rate before vs. after the new facility was statistically significant, a z-test for proportions was conducted. The results in Table 19 indicate that the decrease in the teacher turnover rate was not statistically significant, z = 1.57, p = .116.
Table 19. Teacher Turnover Rate Comparison z-Test Results Source Teacher turnover
Before
After
z
p
17%
6%
1.57
0.116
The results for research question two indicate that while teacher turnove r decreased after the establishment of the new facility, the decrease was not statistically significant and therefore the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities were nonsignificantly associated with teacher turnover rates. Research Question 4
The fourth research question examined the extent to which the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on school climate and school culture as characterized by the OCDQS. The descriptive statistics for the five OCDQS dimensions are presented in Table 20. The responses were based on a4-point scale with a low of 1and a high of 4. All responses were coded so that higher values were associated with more favorable response. The results indicate that the mean scores were more favorable than unfavorable; however, they were not highly favorable. The lowest mean rating was found for the supportive principal dimension (2.71) and the highest mean rating was found for the
100
directive principal dimension (3.04). Since higher ratings were more favorable, a mean rating of 3.04 indicates that teachers generally agree that the principal is not directive.
Table 20. Mean Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Scores Source
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
Principal: supportive
1.86
3.43
2.71
0.45
Principal: directive
2.29
3.57
3.04
0.39
Teacher: engaged
1.75
3.50
2.80
0.45
Teacher: frustrated
1.75
4.00
2.88
0.65
Teacher: intimate
1.83
3.67
2.48
0.53
The results in Table 20 also indicate that teachers’ perceptions were somewhat diverse given that the minimum ratings were unfavorable and the maximum ratings were favorable to very favorable. In order to better understand the dispersion in the data, histograms were constructed for each dimension. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of scores for the supportive principal dimension. The histogram in Figure 3 indicates that teachers were more likely to provide favorable ratings than they were to provide unfavorable ratings. However, teachers were most likely to fall within the neutral range. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the supportive principal dimension, the mean, median and mode for each of the survey items measuring the supportive principal dimension were computed.
101
Figure 3. Histogram for supportive principal dimension
The histogram illustrates the distribution of scores relative to the supportive principal dimension, based on the teachers’ responses. Values of two or below represent unfavorable perceptions while values of three or four represent favorable responses. Values between two and three are interpreted as neither favorable nor unfavorable. Table 21 provides the measures of central tendency for the individual survey items linking to the supportive principal dimension. The results indicate that the item with the most unfavorable rating was “Student government has an influence on school policy” with a mean of 1.19, and a median and mode of 1.0. Another unfavorably rated item was “Pupils 102
are trusted to work together without supervision” with a mean rating of 1.88, and a median and mode of 2.0. “A third item that was rated as relatively unfavorable with a mode of 2.0 was ‘The principal uses constructive criticism’.” “However, teachers provided favorable to very favorable ratings for ‘The principal sets an ex ample by working hard himself/herself” and “The principal compliments teachers’.”
Table 21. Mean, Median and Mode for Supportive Principal Items Item
Mean Median
Mode
Principal sets example by working hard
3.20
3.0
3
Principal compliments teachers
3.19
3.0
3
Student government has an influence
1.19
1.0
1
Principal goes out way to help teachers
2.88
3.0
3
Principal explains reason for criticism
2.69
3.0
3
Principal is available after school
2.75
3.0
3
Principal uses constructive criticism
2.63
2.5
2
Principal looks out for personal welfare of faculty
2.94
3.0
3
Pupils are trusted to work together
1.88
2.0
2
The distribution of ratings for the directive principal dimension is presented in Figure 4. The histogram in Figure 4 indicates that none of the ratings were unfavorable and the majority of the ratings were favorable to very favorable.
103
Figure 4. Histogram for directive principal dimension
The histogram illustrates the distribution of scores relative to the directive principal dimension, based on the teachers’ responses. Values of two or below represent unfavorable perceptions while values of three or four represent favorable responses. Values between two and three are interpreted as neither favorable nor unfavorable. The individual item responses for the directive principal dimension are provided in Table 22. The results indicate that none of the individual items were rated unfavorably and the majority of the items were rated favorably to very favorably. The lowest mean rating was found for “The principal supervises teachers closely” with a mean rating of 2.63; 104
although the median and mode represent a favorable rating. The highest mean rating was found for “Principal rules with an iron fist” with a mean of 3.38, median of 3.5 and a mode of 4.0. Therefore the principal is not perceived to rule with an iron fist.
Table 22. Mean, Median and Mode for Directive Principal Items Item
Mean
Median
Mode
Principal dominates teacher-principal conferences
2.81
3.0
3
Principal rules with an iron fist
3.38
3.5
4
Principal monitors everything teachers do
3.13
3.0
4
Principal closely checks teacher activities
2.81
3.0
3
Principal is autocratic
3.20
3.0
2, 3
Principal supervises teachers closely
2.63
3.0
3
Principal talks more than listens
3.31
3.0
3
Figure 5 provides the distribution of ratings for the teacher en gagement dimension. The results indicate that only one teacher provided an unfavorable rating. The results also indicate that teachers’ ratings were most likely to fall within the neutral range, although there were some teachers with favorable ratings. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the engaged teacher dimension, the mean, median and mode for each of the survey items measuring the engaged teacher dimension were computed.
105
Figure 5. Histogram for engaged teacher dimension
The histogram illustrates the distribution of scores relative to the engaged teacher dimension, based on the teachers’ responses. Values of two or below represent unfavorable perceptions while values of three or four represent favorable responses. Values between two and three are interpreted as neither favorable nor unfavorable. The individual item results in Table 23 indicate that the only unfavorably rated item was “Pupils solve problems through logical reasoning” with a mean of 1.94, and a median and mode of 2.0. The most favorably rated item was “Teachers are friendly with students” with a mean of 3.31 and a median and mode of 3.0. Other favorable items include
106
“Teachers are proud of their school” and “Teachers respect the personal competence of their colleagues”; both had a mean rating of 3.13, a median of 3.0 and a mode of 3.0.
Table 23. Mean, Median and Mode for Engaged Teacher Items Item
Mean Median
Mode
Teachers spend time after school helping students
2.69
3.0
3
Teachers are proud of their school
3.13
3.0
3
Teachers are friendly with students
3.31
3.0
3
Teachers help and support each other
2.75
3.0
3
Pupils solve problems through logical reasoning
1.94
2.0
2
The morale of teachers is high
2.69
3.0
2, 3
Teachers really enjoy working here
2.75
3.0
3
Teachers respect the competence of colleagues
3.13
3.0
3
The distribution of ratings for the frustrated teacher dimension is featured in Figure 6. The histogram in Figure 6 indicates that while some of the ratings were unfavorable, teachers were most likely to rate this dimension favorably, sug gesting that they are not frustrated. In fact, three of the teachers provided very favorable ratings. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the frustrated teacher dimension, the mean, median and mode for each of the survey items measuring the frustrated teacher dimension were computed.
107
Figure 6. Histogram for frustrated teacher dimension
The histogram illustrates the distribution of scores relative to the frustrated teacher dimension, based on the teachers’ responses. Values of two or below represent unfavorable perceptions while values of three or four represent favorable responses. Values between two and three are interpreted as neither favorable nor unfavorable. The individual item results for the frustrated teacher dimension are provided in Table 24. The results indicate that none of the items had an unfavorable mean rating and the median for all items was favorable. The least favorably rated item was “Administrative
108
paper work is burdensome at this school” with a mean of 2.75, a median of 3.0 and a mode of 2.0.
Table 24. Mean, Median and Mode for Frustrated Teacher Items Item
Mean
Median
Mode
Teachers have too many committee requirements
3.25
3.0
3
Routine duties interfere with teaching
2.63
3.0
3
Administrative paper work is burdensome
2.75
3.0
2
Assigned non-teaching duties are excessive
2.88
3.0
3
Finally, Figure 7 displays the distribution of scores for the intimate teacher dimension. The results indicate that teachers were most likely to provide ratings that fell within the neutral range. The range in scores was relatively wide with some teachers providing unfavorable ratings and some teachers providing very favorable ratings. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the intimate teacher dimension, the mean, median and mode for each of the survey items measuring the engaged teacher dimension were computed. The histogram illustrates the distribution of scores relative to the intimate teacher dimension, based on the teachers’ responses. Values of two or below represent unfavorable perceptions while values of three or four represent favorable responses. Values between two and three are interpreted as neither favorable nor unfavorable.
109
Figure 7. Histogram for intimate teacher dimension
The mean, median and modes for the intimate teacher items are presented in Table 25. The results indicate that some of the items were rated very favorably and some were rated unfavorably. The item rated as most unfavorable was “Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home” with a mean of 1.88, a median of 2.0 and a mode of 2.0. The item rated as most favorable was “Teachers interrupt other faculty who are talking in faculty meetings” with a mean of 3.56, a median of 4.0 and a mode of 4.0. Therefore teachers indicated that teachers rarely interrupt other faculty members wh en they are talking in faculty meetings.
110
Table 25. Mean, Median and Mode for Intimate Teacher Items Item
Mean Median
Mode
Teacher mannerisms are annoying at this school
3.31
3.0
3
Teachers interrupt other faculty who are talking
3.56
4.0
4
Teachers' closest friends are other faculty
2.06
2.0
3
Teachers know the family background of faculty
2.06
2.0
2
Teachers invite other faculty to their homes
1.88
2.0
2
Teachers socialize with each other regularly
2.00
2.0
2
Overall, the data analysis findings from the OCDQS ind icate that teachers were diverse regarding their perceptions of their school’s climate and culture; although, teachers were not likely to have unfavorable perceptions with regard to climate and culture. In the open ended interview, teachers were asked to indicate what they liked about their building, what they didn’t like and what they would not include if they were to design a building. The summarized teachers’ responses were as follows: •
Teachers need a larger are and more carpet; more windows; good layout
•
Larger building
•
More computers; less noisy hallways; great wiring
•
Smartboard
•
Extra doors in the room; same classroom layout for each core class; computer stations; printer; better software; smartboard; computers for teache r-student computers; text books which have soft copies and are easy to use with smart boards; response per student equipment auto grading
•
Wide halls; better arrangement, more storage for department 111
•
Need better planning for technology advancements needed by the library; there was enough room for expansion; more emphasis on technology in the classroom and not just the library
•
Too many corners for students to hide; buildings are too spread out; keep the heavy doors that keep out noise; no windows in the door; cameras that record 24 hours a day; need a gym for P.E. only; a gym for athletic events only; an auditorium by itself (e.g., not in the cafeteria)
•
Less noisy halls; classrooms need windows; keep wide halls and good size of building; need individualized heating controls
•
Don’t have a gym attached to classroom hallways; all classes need windows, more teachers for restrooms in hall; all office staff in same area, circular hallways; thermostat should be easier to change
•
More computers and rooms; larger area for art room
Finally, teachers were asked to provide any comments regarding the possible relationship between building design/condition, student achievement, school climate, and teacher retention. The participants’ responses were as follows: •
Kept very clean and maintained
•
Custodians do a great job
•
Clean and cheerful
•
If the building was not clean and in good repair, I would seek employment elsewhere this school is rather new and usually clean ; heating and cooling system is not good; most teachers want a clean environment with enough computer resources; teacher restrooms located closer to classrooms 112
•
New building promotes pride and ownership
•
New schools promote pride in students and teachers; everyone likes new and shiny things; no one likes to have a UIL event at an old school; teachers and students alike are embarrassed
•
Size and technology
•
The main concern is that windows provide red light which keeps students awake; there was a research done on channel 4, 5 or 8 and showed that the brain functions best; at a specific temperature we teachers hav e no control over temperature
•
Technology is pushed a great deal in the school district; computers are not always available; art room; large classes but working and stora ge area is too small
The results for research question three gives evidence suppo rting the idea that changing the facilities creates a different learning environment. Creating change h as a major impact on students, faculty, and administrators. This change creates the t ype of learning environment, which is more conducive to learning and performance.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the quality of facilities on the educational environment in a high school located in a school district in northeast Texas. This study utilized mixed method research, in order to investigate the impact of school facilities on the learning environment. The learning environment included student performance and achievement, the school climate and school culture, and teacher turnover. 113
The high school principal, curriculum director, and superintendent were asked to evaluate the condition of the high school facilities using the Total Learning Environment Assessment (TLEA). The teachers were asked to evaluate the school climate and school culture using the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (OCDQS). Survey data were collected from a total of 16 teachers based on the OCDQS and a total of three administrators based on the TLEA. Student achievement and teacher turnover rate was determined based on archival data. The results of the data analysis findings indicate that quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities are statistically significantly associated with student performance and teacher turnover rate showing a statistical change also. The most important point being student performance as the main focus, thus teacher turnover is not a top priority. Teacher retention is important for the consistency of the educational process, but can be helped in other ways not just by new facilities. This chapter provided the data anal ysis results and addressed the research questions associated with the study. Chapter 5 will provide an interpretation of these findings and discuss the implications of the findings. In addition, the limitations of the study will discussed and recommendations for future research will be p rovided.
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
114
Introduction
Chapter 5 discusses the results, conclusions, and recommendations for this research study. This research study was conducted 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. This research study was significant in exploring the relationship of the school learning environment and school facilities. 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. They were not just speaking about the buildings themselves, but what we need these buildings for—the knowledge creation and transfer of learning (Filardo, 2008).
Summary of the Study
The findings of this research study had implications for setting policies an d practices regarding the funding formula, planning, and design of school facility renovation or construction of new school buildings. 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 115
about school infrastructure. This study was a mixed method research that used questionnaires and interviews to identify and appraise school facilities and learning environment. 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 school site, structural and mechanical features, plant maintainability, school b uilding 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 th e school facilities in this school district located in northeast Texas. 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 is designed specifically for secondar y schools (Hoy et al., 1991). The OCDQ-RS maps 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 form 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 116
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 used open-ended questions in the interviews that were used in McGowen’s (2007) research study, with the approval of the researcher’s 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 b y the school district office for 2007-2008 academic years. Data necessary for a statistical comparison to the TLEA scores was obtained from the TEA. Scores for student performance and achievement will be gathered from TEA’s website through Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports and the reports generated by the school district office. Student performance and achievement data was 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 sch ool. The turnover rate data was gathered from the Texas Education Agency Division of Communication and Public Information for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years.
Summary of Findings and Conclusion
Chapter 5 discussed the results, conclusions, and recommendations for this research study. This research study was conducted to examine the impact of the quality of facilities 117
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. This research study was significant in exploring the relationship of the school learning environment and school facilities. 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 for—the knowledge creation and transfer of learning (Filardo). Survey data were collected from a total of 16 teachers based on the OCDQS and a total of three administrators based on the TLEA. Student achievement and teacher turnover rate was determined based on archival data. To address the research questions, a mixed methods methodology was used. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed: Research Question 1 To what extent does the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and achievement, and teacher turnover rate as characterized by the Total Learning Environment Assessment (TLEA)?
The results indicated that the mean scores show levels of general agreement that the educational facilities are adequate. None of the minimum scores reflected general disagreement while the maximum scores tended to show relatively strong agreement and 118
therefore favorable appraisals of the educational facilities. The results indicated that the area with the highest (most favorable) mean rating was the exterior environment (3.50) and the area with the lowest (least favorable) mean rating w as support space (2.97). Furthermore, the area in which administrators’ perceptions were most similar was support space given that the standard deviation for that particular area was smallest (0.15). Overall, these survey results support the researcher’s assumption that the new facility (2004-2005 ) resulted in adequate to high quality educational facilities. Research Question 2 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)?
The results were provided for the baseline year (2003-2004) and the overall (mean) performance for the post period (2004-2005 through 2008-2009). The results indicated that student performance was higher after the new facility in all four subjects and when considering all tests combined. The largest increase in student performance was seen for mathematics (22.0%) and the smallest increase was seen for English language arts (2.8%). However, English language arts performance was high prior to the new facility. These results also indicated that while only 48.0% of students passed all of the tests before the new facility, 65.0% of the students since the new facility passed all four tests. Overall, English language arts performance had remained relatively stable.
Research Question 3
119
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)?
The results indicated that the teacher turnover rate was lower after the new facility. The turnover rate in 2003-2004 was 16.7% and the mean turnover rate from 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 was 5.8%, which was a decrease of 10.9%. The results indicated that the turnover rate dropped drastically after the new facility was provided. In addition, the turnover rate remained low until 2008-2009 where it increased sharply. However, the turnover rate in 2008-2009 was still noticeably lower than the year prior to the new facility (2003-2004). The results indicated that while teacher turnover decreased after the establishment of the new facility, the decrease was not statistically significant and therefore the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities were non-significantly associated with teacher turnover rates. Research Question 4 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)?
The results indicated that the mean scores were more favorable than unfavorable; however, they were not highly favorable. The lowest mean rating was found for the supportive principal dimension (2.71) and the highest mean rating was found for the directive principal dimension (3.04). Since higher ratings were more favorable, a mean rating of 3.04 indicated that teachers generally agree that the principal was not directive. The results also indicated that teacher perceptions were somewhat diverse given 120
that the minimum ratings were unfavorable and the maximum ratings were favorable to very favorable. In order to better understand the dispersion in the data, histograms were constructed for each dimension. The results indicated that teachers were more likely to provide favorable ratings than they were to provide unfavorable ratings. However, teachers were most likely to fall within the neutral range.
Recommendations
Recommendations have been made for future practice in schools, theories, and future research that will ultimately improve schools. Further, recommendations for applying current findings are presented. Recommendations for Future Practice
In order to improve student performance and improve the education process, educators must have adequate facilities that provide an atmosphere and amenities for student success (Blincoe, 2008). According to Blincoe (2008), educators must strive to improve student performance as well as to improve the education process. Blincoe (2008) listed recommendations that should be provided for possible improvements in order to help school leaders to make the best decisions concerning facility improvements: (a) school leaders must maintain facilities, making sure that preventative maintenance is complete d; (b) school leaders must ensure that buildings are kept clean and neat, which will help in the overall maintenance and aesthetics of the building; (c) school leaders should work together with school board members, and the superintendent to fund all necessary improvements to facilities to ensure the high levels of academic gain that is mandated by state officials; (d)
121
state officials, school leaders, and industry executives should develop a system for properly assessing buildings, and repairing those in the worst condition first. Economic conditions that were found in the United States had prompted serious discussions about the need for federal stimulus spending (Filardo, 2008). The deteriorating physical condition of the nation’s public schools presented an opportunity for federal spending that was targeted to growth, which created high-quality jobs, which also provided long-term benefits by building a better learning environment (Filardo, 2008). There must be immediate spending on public schools maintenance and repair. This will help the economy and improve education quality and even health (Filardo, 2008). Educators must be committed to closing the achievement gap, while at the same time having safe, up-to-date, quality facilities (Filardo, 2008; Moore, 2008). The federal government must continue to provide needed funding that supports state and local educational efforts and to help build and modernize school facilities (Moore, 2008). School facilities guidelines should be developed through collaborative process with educators and interested persons dealing with design, construction and maintenance of school facilities. These guidelines will link educational goals and facilities design, will help to facilitate flexible, performance-based application will help to en courage collaborative development, will help to become a tool to train superintendents, and will help to guide for future capital investments (Mississippi State University Educational Design Institute, 2008). States should want to strengthen the relationship between maintenance and state funding that maybe provided through the capital improvement program. States should develop incentive programs of state funding in order to assist local school systems with their maintenance tasks (Monk, 2006). 122
Theories
Akinsanmi (2010) pointed out that people learn in formal settings like conferences and schools, non-formal settings such as hobby groups, and informal setting like homes. Akinsanmi discussed the theories that explained how learning occurred in schools. These explanations fell under three broad schools of thought, i.e., behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Under the behaviorism school of thought, schools were designed on lecture-based, teacher-focused, and structured. To promote learning, the use of a system of reward and punishment was used. Under the cognitive school thought, the mental processes (thinking, memory, knowing, and problem solving) were included in how people learn. This meant that the learner should be an active participant in the learning process. Under the constructivism school of thought, the learner constructs knowledge through experience and in accordance with his or her level of cognitive development (Akinsanmi, 2010; Boyle, 1994). Learning environments should be based on student-centered, collaborative, cooperative, and experiential (Akinsanmi, 2010). School administrators, architects, engineers, and facility planners of physical learning environments mu st respond to a program of spatial relationships and requirements when creating a physical context for learning environments, because most learning theories do not provide sufficient description of their physical context (Akinsanmi). Many designers and school officials were not embracing constructivismlearning theories. Educators and school administrators must also ensure that the educational specifications they work with reflect the appropriate learning theor y. Recommendations for Future Research
123
A similar study that explores the correlation between student achievement and a school organizational culture, and using different instrumentation such as surveys with teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders could be conducted. The methodology for this type of study could be quantitative. A similar study that explores the correlation between administrator leadership styles and achievement could be considered as a research study. The methodology for this type of study could be qualitative. A qualitative study may provide more information that is inaccessible in a quantitative mode or useful in deciphering data. From this type of research study, educators may provide more descriptions or how the physical environment may impact the performance of their students. Quantitative studies that may be similar to this research study could be considered in expanding this study population to gather larger research study samples. This may assist in providing more statistically significant data. Future studies focused on a specific school or a set of schools investigating student performance data. A similar study could be conducted in a similar school district replicating the use of student performance on a state test, school climate and school culture, teacher turnover, and attendance rates. An investigation of whether or not attendance rates that reflected a relationship with building facilities could be researched. School leaders must continue to beware of that they are the communicators in the school design and school facilities process. School leaders must work to hone their skills in order to represent their district and community’s needs, visions, and expectations. School leaders and teachers must address school climate and school culture to assist in promoting better school safety from an internal as well as ex ternal approach. 124
According to Bosch (2004), there was no specific set of recommended research priorities that guided current and future research that ensured that school facilities research was relevant to practitioners; although there were organizations like the CEFPI and the National Clearinghouse for Educational facilities that provided research information in regards to school facilities. Applying Current Findings
The results from this study pertaining to the impact of school facilities on student achievement supported early research of Cash (1993) and O’Neill (2000). Cash (1993) reported several statistically significant conclusions that were based on his research. Cash (1993) found that student achievement was higher in buildings with higher quality ratings, in school buildings that were rated higher cosmetically, and schools that had new science facilities. O’Neill (2000) found statistically significant results for school buildings with high levels of student achievement and high scores on the TLEA building indicators related to the size of academic spacing. The results of this study indicated that the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities were associated with a statistically significant increase in the percent of students passing the mathematics, social studies, and English langu age arts portions of the TAKS. For this reason, school administrators should be guided to further research studies that relate to design, construction, and mai ntenance of school facilities. According to the research data that is supplied in Table 16 in Chapter 4 of this study, students’ performance by subject areas increased after a new facility was built. This may lead administrators and designers to give more emphasis on academic spaces such as labs, classrooms, and libraries when building or renovating schools. 125
The results of this study indicated that the teacher turnover rate dropped drastically after a new facility was provided. Administrators and designers may consider more emphasis on improving learning spaces in schools to improve working conditions for teachers. Table 18 in Chapter 4 shows the mean of teachers’ turnover rate before and after a new facility was built and Figure 2 in Chapter 4 shows the percentage of teachers turning over after a new facility was built. The results of this study indicated that the overall data analysis findings from the OCDQS indicated that teachers were diverse in regards to their perceptions of their school’s climate and culture.
Implications
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 proposed that all students by the year of 2014 must meet state standards. Therefore, states, school leaders, school districts, and schools were held responsible and accountable for student achievement. Educators must meet this challenge in order to meet the needs of all students by providing good school facilities, and engaging in practices that identifies and addresses deficiencies of all students. The study investigated the impact of the quality of facilities on the educational environment in high schools. Data was shown that there was a relationship between school facility and the learning environment and confirms the need for further research that addresses other indicators of student achievement and the overall success in school. If educators are to be held accountable for student achievement, lawmakers must make provision within the NCLB to ensure that school leaders, school districts, and schools are making every effort to address the achievement of all students. Educators must make every
126
effort of developing and retaining high-quality teachers in every community and at every grade level to provide an equitable education to children across the nation.
127
REFERENCES
Agron, J. (2003). Absence of resources: American school and university 32nd annual M & O cost study. American School & University, 75, 26-35. Akinsanmi, B. (2008). The optimal learning environment: Learning theories. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.designshare.com/index.php/articles Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition. A costly loss to the nation And to the states. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.all4ed.org/ files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf AllPsych Online. (2003). Research methods: Test validity and reliability. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://allpsych.com/reserchmethods/validityreliability.hml American Federation of Teachers. (2008). Building minds, minding building, turning Crumbling schools into environments for learning. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.aft.org/topics/building-conditions/downloads/minding-bldgs.pdf American Lung Association. (2002). Asthma in children fact sheet. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=205 8817&content_id={05C5FA0A-A953-4BB6-BB74-F07C2ECCABA9}¬oc=1 American School of Professional Psychology (2009). Purposive sampling. Retrieved May 9, 2009, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/sampling/purposive_ sampling.htm American Society of Civil Engineers. (2008a). Report card for America’s infrastructure: Schools (D). Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.asce.org/reportcard /2005/page.cfm?id=31 American Society of Civil Engineers. (2008b). Report card for America’s infrastructure: Schools condition. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=factsheet&page=5 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 (1990)
Andrews, J. B., & Neuroth, R. (1988, October). Environmentally Related Health Hazards in the Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of School Business Officials International in Detroit, Michigan. ED 300929. Answer.com (2009). Purposive sampling. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.answers.com/topic/purposive-sampling
128
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2008). Educational facility design. Camberwell, VIC AU: Cunningham Library. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://cunningham.acer.edu.au/scripts/mtmcgi80.dll?s=18n=18t=2&l=18k=18y=0 8w=Educational+Facilities+Design Babbie, E. (1995). Research methods for social science. (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Babbie, E. R. (2005). The basics of social research. Florence, KY: Thomson Wadsworth. Barnard, H. (1848). School architecture, or, contributions to the improvement of schoolhouses in the United States. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes. Bensman, D. (1995). Learning to think well: Central Park East Secondary School graduates reflect on their high school and college experiences. New York, NY: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching. Teachers College, Columbia University. Berner, M. M. (1993, April). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in the District of Columbia public school system. Urban Education, 28, 6-29. Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27 (2), 137-174. Retrieved June 8, 2009 from http://retainingteachers.com/models.html Bishop, M. (2009). A case study on facility design: The impact of new high school facilities in Virginia on student achievement and staff attitudes and behaviors. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University, United States – Washington, DC. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3344635). Blincoe, J. M. (2008). The age and condition of Texas high schools as related to student academic achievement. EdD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States – Texas. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3341554). Bly, J. (2007). School climate. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.greendale.k12.wi. us/district/news/assets/SNFeb-Bly.pdf Boe, E., Bobbitt, S., & Cook, L. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Journal of Special Education, 30, 371-389.
129
Bond, R., & Giles, C. (1997). The contracting resource base: a catalyst for educational administration reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 11, 111-116. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from ProQuest database.
Bowers, J. H., & Burkett, C. W. (1988). Physical environment influences related to student achievement, health, attendance and behavior. Council of Educational Facility Planners Journal , 26 , pp. 33-34. Boyle, T. (1994). Designing for usability and effectiveness in a resource rich learning system. East-West Journal of Computers in Education, 1, 37-45. Brady, J. (2004). Color concerns: It is not just personal preference. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.correctionalnews.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid =&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A 7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D3070B6090E1429B9 DE0BA7416A605AB&AudID=B8B2FB7631C321AA546EB059F194D70 British Educational Research Association. (2009). Mixed methods research: Practical arguments for mixed methods research. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.bera.ac.uk/mixed-methods-research Broome, S. K. (2003). The relationship between design of school facilities and student behavior and academic achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi). Retrieved May 2, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (AAT 3089830). Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London, EN: Sage. Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004a). LAUSD school facilities and academic performance. Retrieved My 1, 2008, from http://edfacilities.org/pubs/ LAUSD%20Report.pdf Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004b). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, DC. Teachers College Record, 107, 1107-1123. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from EBSCO host database.
130
Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004c). The effects of school quality on teacher retention in urban school districts. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from h ttp://www.edfacilities. org/pubs/ teacherretention.cfm Building Educational Success Together. (2005). Recommended policies for public school facilities. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.21csf.org/csfhome/publications/modelpolicies/PlanningSectionMay2005.pdf Bullock, C. (2007). The relationship between school building conditions and student achievement at the middle school level in Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://scholar.lib.vt.ed/theses/available/etd-08212007-163313 Bush, T. (1993). International high school: How work works. In Gregory A. Smith (ED). Public Schools That Work: Creating Community. New York, NY: Routledge. Caddick, J. (2006). The walls speaks: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-JudiCaddick.pdf Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. California Department of Education. (2007). The impact of school facilities. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/achievementppt.asp Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1991). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). The condition of teaching: A state-by-state analysis. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cash, C. (1993). Building condition and student achievement and behavior. Ph. D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, United States -- Virginia. Retrieved July 4, 2009, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9319761). Chan, T. C. (1996). Environmental impact on student learning. Retrieved May 5, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal;jsessionid=HwnVGyBDgy9NhJG 1H116JTk4TokkyTpywbjQz5r8DFCXHJYqvM1209635?_nfpb=true&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=%22Chan+T.+C.%22&ERICExtSearchType_0=au&_urlT ype+action&_pageLabel==ERICSearchResult
131
Center for Public Education. (2008). District and school climate: Is student attendance an issue? Retrieved May 5, 2008 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation. org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.3596711/k.AE57/District_and_school_climate_Is_stude t _attendance_an_issue.htm Clark, C. (2001). Texas state support for school facilities, 1971 to 2001. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 683-700. Clinton-Gore Administration. (2000).: Modernizing America’s Schools. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/EOP/nec/html/doc061600.html Corocoran, T., Walker, L. J., & White, J. L. (1998). Working in urban schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis, 8 (1). Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right to meet the “highly qualified” teacher: Challenge. Education Policy Archives, 11, 16-19. Dawn, L. (1999). Financing public school facilities in Texas: A case study. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewees, S. (1999). Improving rural school facilities for teaching and learning. (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and S mall Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438153). Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-4/rural2.htm Directorate of Education. (2008). Evaluating quality in educational facilities. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_ 35961311_35470674_1_1_1_1,000.html Duffy, P. M. (1992) Classrooms and their users: A conceptual mapping of research on the physical environment of schools (school environment). Ph. D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9227428). Dufourd, B. (2001). The learning environment: Reflections on the function of facilities. PEB Exchange, Program on Educational Building, 16, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/767526546174 132
Earthman, G. I. (1996). Review of the research on the relationship between school buildings , student achievement, and student behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, International Tarpon Springs, FL. Earthman, G. I. (2002). School facility conditions and student academic achievement. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/williams/reports/pdfs/wws08Earthman.pdf Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/ facilities/ACLUfacilities_report1-04.pdf Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. (1996). Review of research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, Dallas, Texas. Edwards, M. (1992). Building conditions: Parental involvement and student achievement in the D. C. public school system. (Masters Degree Thesis, Georgetown University, ED 264 285, 1992). Edwards, N. C. (2006). School facilities and student achievement: Student perspectives on connection between the urban learning environment and student motivation and performance. Ph. D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States –Ohio. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/ Edwards%20Nicole%20C.pdf?osu1164663224 Eller, W. S., Doerfler, C. B., & Meier, L. J. (2000). Teacher turnover in Texas: Problems and prospects. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://teep.tamu.edu/ reports/report010.pdf Energy Star. (2003). Energy efficiency and indoor air quality in schools. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/k12_schools/Ee&iaq.pdf Filardo, M. (2008). Good buildings, better schools: An economic stimulus opportunity with long-term benefits. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.sharedprosperity. org/bp216/bp216.pdf Fischer, J. C., & Bayer, C. W. (2003). Humidity control in school facilities. Retrieved from http://doas-radiant.psu.edu/Fischer_Article_on_School_IAQ_03.pdf Flannery, P. (2001, April). Suit triggered gigantic spending-All schools will meet standards. Scottsdale, AR: Arizona Republic. 133
Foreman, B., Maiden, J., & Byford, J. (1997). The perceived elements of educational facility design essential in improving the learning climate. The Journal of School Business Management 9, 45-49. Frazier, L. M. (1993). Deteriorating school facilities and student learning. (ERIC Digest, Number 82). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356564). Friedman, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. (1978). Environmental design evaluation. New York, NY: Plenum. Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377-385. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P. (2006). Educational research: An introduction. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research: An introduction. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Gertel, S., McCarty, P., & Schoff, L. (2004). High performance schools equals high performing students. Educational Facility Planner, 39, 20-24. Haas, D. S. (1987). Financing public school facilities under the maximum class size requirements in Texas. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWeb Portal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearc SearchValue_0=ED310543&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED310543 Hadden, J. L. (2005). Educational facility design features in Georgia schools. (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Georgia). Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/research/GAstudy/jhaddendis.htm Hale, O. (2002). Improving performance. American School and University, 75, 32-35. Harner, D. P. (1974, April). Effects of thermal environment on learning skills. CEFP Journal, 12, 4-8. Harrington, L. P. (1952). Effect of thermal environment on human actions. American School & University, 24, 367-376. Hawkins, H. L., & Lilley, H. E. (1998). Guide for school facility appraisal. Phoenix, AZ: Council of Educational Facility Planners, International.
134
Haycock , K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Haynes, N. M. (1998). Creating safe and caring school communities: Comer School Development Program schools. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 308-314. Heschong Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in schools, additional analysis. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://coe.uga.edu/sdpl/research/daylightingstudy.pdf Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. London: Design Council. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-Council/Files/ System-Files/Looking-for-homepage/ Hill, F., & Cohen, S. (2005). School design impacts upon cognitive learning. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://www.schoolfacilities.com/_coreModules/content/content Display_print.aspx?contentID=1792 Hines, E. (1996). Building condition and student achievement and behavior. Ph. D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and State University, United States -- Virginia. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9712733). Holloway, J. H. (2000). Healthy buildings, successful students. Educational Leadership , 57 , 88-89. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from ProQuest database. Holt, C. R., & Smith, R. M. (2002). The relationship between school climate and student success. Arkansas Educational Research & Policy Studies Journal, 2, 52-54. Honeyman, D. S., & Sayles, K. (1995). The condition of America’s schools. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal; jsessionid=HNQZNNbQR0FBG224vW3X20vlThdmdbhy3fnjVILQ0W4TJXV6!6 86721917?_fpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResults House Research Organization. (2005). Supreme Court finds current school tax system unconstitutional. Texas House of Representatives. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int79-1.pdf Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.waynekhoy.com/pdfs/open_schools_healthy_schools_book.pdf
135
Hughes, S. M. (2005). The relationship between school design variables and student achievement in a large urban Texas school district. Ph. D. dissertation, Baylor University, Retrieved June 2, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. (AAT 315290). Hunt, O. (2007). A mixed method. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from http://www.articlealley. com/article_185975_22.html Hunter, M. A. (2006). Public school facilities: Providing environments that sustain learning. Teachers College Columbia University. New York, NY: National Access Network. Illinois State Board of Education. (2008). EFAB survey: How does your organization define adequacy? Retrieved from http://isbe.state.il.us/EFAB/archive/Survey/ DefineAdequacy.pdf Illinois State Department of Education. (2006). Illinois resource guide for healthy, high performing school buildings. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.cdb.state.il.us/schools/HealthySchoolsGuide.html Ingersoll, R. M. (2000). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://depts.washington.edu/ ctpmail/PDFs/Turnover-Ing-01-2001.pdf Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-09-2003.pdf Jago, E., & Tanner, K. (1999). Influence of the school facility on student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/researchabstracts/visual.html Jefferies, S. C. (1999). Descriptive research. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.cwu.edu/~jefferis/PEHL557/pehl557_descript.html Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2007). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. (n.d.). Mixed Research: Mixed Method and Mixed Model Research. In Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (Chap. 14). Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec14.htm
136
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26. Johnson, S. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/research/bestpractices/images/wcreport.pdf Kennedy, M. (2001). Into thin air. American School & University, 73, 32. Key, J. P. (1997). Research design in occupational education. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage110.htm Kirby, N., & Grissmer, D. W. (1993). Teacher attrition: Theory, evidence, and suggested policy options. Retrieved May 2010 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/3b/36.pdf Klauke, A. (1988). Repairing and renovating aging school facilities. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9210/aging.htm Knupfer, N. N., & McLellan, H. (n. d.). Descriptive research methodologies. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/itphdsem/41s.pdf Kowalski, T. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kowalski, T. (2002). Planning and managing school facilities. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., Emmons, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1997). Perceived school climate and difficulties in the social adjustment of middle school students. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 76-88. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lackney, J. A. (1999a). The relationship between environmental qualities of school facilities and student performance. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://schoolstudio.engr.wisc.edu/energysmartschools.html Lackney, J. A. (1999b). Assessing school facilities for learning/assessing the impact the physical environment on the educational process: Integrating theoretical issues with practical concerns . Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University, Educational Design Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441-330).
137
Lackney, J. A., & Chang, C. (1992). A longitudinal investigation of building condition, educational adequacy and educational outcomes in the Milwaukee public schools. Retrieved May 12, 2009, fromhttp://scholstudio.engr.wisc.edu/mpsinvestigation.html Lackney, J. A., & Picus, L. O. (2005). School facilities – Overview, maintenance and modernization of. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://education.state university.com/pages/2394/School-Facilities.html Lanham, III, J. W. (1999). Relating building and classroom conditions to student achievement in Virginia’s elementary school. Ph. D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, United States – Virginia. Retrieved J uly 6, 2009, from Dissertation & These: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 9936917). Leach, K. (1997). In sync with nature: Designing a building with improved indoor air quality could pay off with improved student health and performance. School Planning and Management, 36, 32-37. Lefkowits, L. (2004). School finance: From equity to adequacy. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/5042PI_PBSchoolFinanceBrief.pdf Lemasters, L. K. (1997). A synthesis of studies pertaining to facilities, student achievement, and student behavior. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic and State University. Lewis, C.C., Schaps, E., & Watson, M. S. (1996). The caring classroom’s academic edge. Educational Leadership, 54, 16-21. Lewis, M. (2000). Where children learn: Facility condition and student test performance in Milwaukee public schools. Scottsdale, AR: Council of Educational Facility Planners. Livesey, C. (n. d.). “A” level sociology: A resource-based learning approach. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.sociology.org.uk/methrvt.doc Luke, C. A. (2007). Equity in Texas public education facilities funding. Ph. D. dissertation, University of North Texas, United States -- Texas. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3276450) Lyons, J. (2001). Do schools facilities really impact a child’s education? Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/articlesandpapers/lyons.htm Maiden, J. and Foreman, B. A. (1998, January). Cost, design and climate: Building a learning environment. School Business Affairs, 64, 40-44.
138
Manning, M. L., & Saddlemire, R. (1996). Developing a sense of community in secondary schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584), 41-48. Marshall, M. L. (2009). Examining school climate: Defining factors and educational influences. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/ download%20files/wp%202002%20school%20climate.pdf
Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93 , 39-47. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from ProQuest database. McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review . Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (3), 130-140. McGowen, R. S. (2007). The Impact of school facilities on student achievement, attendance, behavior, completion rate, and teacher turnover rate in selected Texas high schools. Ph. D. dissertation, Texas A & M University, United States -Texas. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3296470). McGuffey, C. W. (1982). Facilities. In H. J. Walbert Improving Educational Standards and Productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative methods. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. McNamara, C. (1999). General guidelines for conducting interviews . Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm Mississippi State University Educational Design Institute. (2008). History of MSDG. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from http://www.edimsstate.edu/guidelines/history.php Monk, D. M. (2006). An assessment of the quality and educational adequacy of educational facilities and their perceived impact on the learning environment as reported by middle school administrators and teachers in the humble independent school district, Humble, Texas. Ed.D. dissertation, Texas A & M University, United States – Texas. Retrieved July 31, 2008, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3246400). Moore, D. P., & Warner, E. (1998, December). Where children learn: The effect of facilities on student achievement. CEFPI Issue Trak , 1-4.
139
Moore, K. J. (2008). Modern public school facilities: Investing in the future. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/congresstestimony.doc Morgan, J. B. (1917, April). The effect of sound distractions upon memory. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 191-208. Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113-127. Mueller, C., & Price, J. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 321-335. Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (Eds.). (1991). Who will teach?: Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Condition of America’s public school facilities. Retrieved May , 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000032.pdf National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003 ). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.library.uiuc.edu/schoolreform/teaching.htm National Conference of State Legislatures. (1998). Educational adequacy: Building an adequate school finance system. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini. jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED424660&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED424660 National Education Association. (2000). Modernizing our schools: What will it cost? Washington, DC: NEA. National Parent Teachers Association. (2008). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved from http://www.pta.org/archive_article_details_1141771131406.html National Research Council of the National Academies. (2006). Review of the health and productivity benefits of green schools: an interim report. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11574 No Child Left Behind Act, 42 § 9101 (2002).
Nolan, J. A. (1960, Summer). Influence of classroom temperature on academic learning. Automated Teacher Bulletin, 1, 12-20. Oates, J. (2003). Critical conditions for equity and diversity in college access: Informing policy and monitoring results. Los Angles, CA: University of California. 140
Olson, S. L., & Kellum, S. (2003). The impact of sustainable buildings on educational achievements in k-12 schools. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/download/sustainableschools.pdf O'Neill, D. J. (2000). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, behavior, attendance, and teacher turnover rate at selected middle schools in Region XIII ESC. (Doctoral dissertation.Texas A & M University). Retrieved February 21, 200 8, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. (AAT 9980195). O’Neill, D. J., & Oates, A. (2001). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, behavior, attendance, and teacher turnover rate in Central Texas middle schools. Educational Facility Planner, 36 (3), 14-22. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). The appraisal of investments in educational facilities. Pembroke, MA: OCED. Ortiz, F. I. (2002). Essential learning conditions for California youth: Educational facilities. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/idea/wws/wws-rr0071002 Overbaugh, B. L. (1990). School facilities: The relationship of the physical environment to teacher professionalism. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A& M University). Retrieved July 28, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. (AAT 9027259) Phillips, R. W. (1997). Educational facility age and the academic achievement of upper elementary school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. (AAT 9807 080). Pile, J. (1997). Interior colors for schools and college buildings. In Color in Interior Design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Plympton, P., Conway, S., & Epstein, K. (2000). Daylighting in schools: Improving student performance and health at a price schools can afford. Retrieved May 3, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_ storage_01/0000019b/80/16/2e/a4.pdf Postlethwaite, T. N. (2005). Educational research: Some basic concepts. In K. N. Ross (Ed.). Quantitative Research Methods in Educational Planning. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/TR_Mods/Qu_Mod1.pdf Randall, D., Fedor, D., & Longenecker, C. (1990). The behavioral expression of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210-224.
141
Randeree, E. (2006). Structural barriers: redesigning schools to create learn ing organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 397-404. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from ProQuest database. Raymond Community School. (2008). School facilities. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.raymondmaine.org/rsd/schlpolicy/school_policies/section_k/KG.pdf Raywid, M. A. (December 1997/January 1998). Small schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership, 55, 34-39. Retrieved from EBSCO host database. Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 701-709 (1973)
Rindskopf, D. (2001). Reliability: Measurement. In Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baites (eds.). (pp. 13013-13028). International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Oxford: Pergamon. Robins, L. (2005). Assessing learning environments: Context matters. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from http://www.iamse.org/development/2005/webcast_042105.pdf Robinson, G. E., & Richardson, G. (1999). Would removing indoor air particulates in children’s environments reduce rate of absenteeism—a hypothesis. The Science of the Total Environment, 234, 87-93. Rosenholtz, S. L., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education, 63, 241-247. Sanoff, H. (2001). School building assessment methods. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/facility_assessment.cfm Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf Schneider, M. (2003). Linking school facility conditions with teacher satisfaction and success. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/best/best.asp Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46 (3), 21-27. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from EBSCO host database. Shaughnessy, R. J. (2008). Correlating indoor air to student academic performance. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/publications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=9665 Sinofsky, E. R., & Knirck, F. G. (1981). Choose the right color for your learning style. Instructional Innovator, 26, 17-19. 142
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan. Smedje, G., & Norback, D. (1999). The school environment: Is it related to the incidence of asthma in the pupils? Indoor Air ’99, 5, 445-450. Smith, T. E. C. (1984, February). Opening doors. American School and University, 56 (6), 64-65. EJ294864. Social Psychology Network. (2009). Tips on informed consent. Retrieved from http://www.socialpsychology.org/consent.htm Sparknotes (2009). Ethical Consideration. Retrieved July 4, 2009, from http://www.sparknotes.com/101/psychology/research_methods_in_psychology/et hical_considerations.html Squires, D. & McDougall, A. (1994). Choosing and using educational software: A teacher’s guide. London: The Falmer Press. Stallings, D. (2008). Public school facilities and teacher job satisfaction . Ph. D. dissertation, East Carolina University, United States – North Carolina. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from Dissertation & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3302346). Stevenson, K. R. (2001). The relationship of school facilities conditions to selected student academic outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://www.sceoc.org/NR/rdonlyrs/A59CA11F-A8AE-4578-A12C40AA77DB5A13/0/FacilityStudyReport01.pdf Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 309-330. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from ProQuest database. Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2005). Educational architecture: School facilities planning, design, construction, and management. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/books05/ch1.html Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership, architecture, and management. Boston, MA: Pearson Education-Allyn & Bacon. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 3-7. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (2003). Do K-12 school facilities affect education outcomes? Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.tennessee.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Education/SchFac.pdf 143
Tepfer, F. (2008). Building systems: An introduction. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/SchlFacilities/BuildingSystIntro.html Terry, L. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2005). A national issue: Whether the teacher turnover effects students’ academic performance? Doctoral Forum National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 5, 1-5. Texas Association of School Boards. (2008). Funding school facilities. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.tasb.org/issues/resource_center/documents/funding_school_ facilities.pdf Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. (2006). Current and future facilities needs of Texas public school districts. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/facilities2006 Texas Education Agency. (2007). Enrollment in Texas public schools: 2005-2006. (Document No. GE0760105). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/enrollment_2005-06.pdf Texas Education Agency. (2003). Most Texas school districts meet adequate yearly progress goals. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/press/ ayp20031.html The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 (1975)
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Survey research. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://www/socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survey.php Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/schoolhouse/documents/wallsspeak.pdf Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Wolsey, T. D. (2007). The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/schoolhouse/C/stories.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008a). Educational effectiveness. Retrieved July 31, 2008 from http://www.qualityresearchinternational. com/glossary/effectiveness.htm United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2008b ). Historical context of school buildings and facilities program. Retrieve May 2, 2008, from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/erd/english/ear/text/prog1.html
144
United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2005). The Secretary’s fourth annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/newsline /archives/2006/01/the_secretarys.html United States Department of Education. (2000). The class size reduction program: Boosting student achievement in schools across the nation. Washington, DC: The Department Education. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/class.pdf United States Department of Education. (1999). Conditions of America’s public school facilities. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000032/index.asp?sectionID=1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). High performance schools. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/highperformance.html United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Indoor air quality & student performance. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/iedweb00/schools/pdfs/publications/iaq_and_student_perfor mance.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Indoor air quality and student performance. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/performance.html United States General Accounting Office. (1995a). Conditions of America’s schools. (Report No. GAO/HEHS-95-61 Publication No. B-259307). Washington, DC: GAO. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/schgao.html United States General Accounting Office. (1995b). School facilities: American schools not designed or equipped for the twenty-first century. (Report No. GAOED3830). Washington DC: GAO. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini. jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED383056&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED383056 United States General Accounting Office. (1996). School facilities: America’s schools report differing conditions. (Report No. GAO/HEHS-96-103). Washington, DC: GAO. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from ttp://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/he96103.pdf
145
Valenzuela, D., & Shrivastava, P. (2002). Interviews as a method for qualitative research. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/ Interview%20Fri.pdf Van Roekel, D. (2008). Economic impact of school infrastructure investments. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp? Formmode =printfriendly&id=7461 Washington State Department of Education. (2003). Nine characteristics of high performing schools. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://teacherweb.com/ MA/Teachers21/JerryGoldberg/HighPerformingSchools.pdf Wasson, J. (2002). Descriptive research. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed603/ed603lesson10.htm WestEd. (2001). Are small schools better? Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/po-01-03.pdf Wilson, C. L. (2008). The impact of the educational facility on student achievement. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://ncate.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/cathywilson.pdf Wilson, D. T. (2007). Educational adequacy assessments: Making a difference where our children learn. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.magellank12.com/graphics/pdf/Article.PDF Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (2008). CPRE’s school finance research: 15 years of findings. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.wcer.wisc. edu/news/coverstories/cpre_school_finance_research.php Wyon, D. P. (2000). The effects on health and self-estimated productivity of two experimental interventions, which reduced airborne dust levels in office premises. Healthy Buildings 2000, 1, 641–646. Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13, 41-47. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.msera.org/Rits_131/Yin_131.pdf Yonezawa, S., Jones, M., Mehan, H., & McClure, L. (2008). School climate and student achievement. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.closingtheachievement gap.org/cs/ctag/download/resources/102/Yonezawa_Policy_Brief.pdf?x-r=pcfile
146
APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Code_______________ Instructions: Please place an “X” in the appropriate box or blank that will reflect your
answer. Your responses are very important. Your responses will be an essential part of this research study. Thank you in advance for your assistance. (Note: This survey is for followup purposes only. All responses are treated with confidentiality). 1. Your age Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 and above
2. Your gender Male
Female
3. Your ethnicity White Non - Hispanic
AfricanAmerican
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
4. Your highest degree Bachelor Masters Masters + 30 Doctorate Other (Please specify: ___________________) 5. Your total years of teaching experience 0-5 6-12 13-20 21-25 Other (Please specify: __________________)
26-30
30+
6. Your primary teaching position (primary area is your teaching assignment for more than 50% of the school day). Please choose only one category. ______English ______Mathematics ______Science ______Social Studies ______Health/Physical Education ______Special Education ______Family Consumer Sciences ______Fine Arts (Art, Music) ______Business & Office ______Trade & Industry ______Technology Education ______Marketing & Distributive 147
______Health Occupations ______Other (Please specify: _____________________ 7. Your total number of years at current school 0-5 6-12 13-20 21-25 Other (Please specify: ___________________)
26-30
30+
8. ______Your number of principals under whom you have worked 9. ______Your number of years teaching/working under the current principal 10. _______________________Your primary certification (Teaching Certificate)
148
APPENDIX B. TOTAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT (TLEA) HIGH SCHOOL VERSION Questionnaire Directions: The following are statements about your school. Please indicate the extent to
which each statement characterizes your school facility by marking the appropriate response. 1. What is the age of your facility? 60 years old or older 50-59 years old 40-49 years old 30-39 years old 20-29 years old 10-19 years old Under 10 years old
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
2. If the school has been renovated, how long ago was the most recent renovation done? 30 years or more 20-29 years 10-19 years 5-9 years Less than 5 years Never renovated
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
3. At the time the building was built or renovated, to what extent was school personnel involved in the planning process with building designers? To a great extent _______ To some extent _______ Limited extent _______ Not at all _______ Unknown _______
instructional
4. To what degree is the instructional philosophy of your campus integrated into the learning environment? To a great extent _______ To some extent _______ Limited extent _______ Not at all _______ Unknown _______
149
5. Are portable buildings utilized as classrooms on your campus? (Circle your response.) Yes
No Educational Adequacy
Academic Learning Space
(Circle the number of your response.)
1. Size of academic learning (classroom) space meets state standards (700 sq. ft.). Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
2. Classroom space permits arrangements for small group activity. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
3. Location of academic learning areas is near related educational activities and away from disruptive noises. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
4. Personal space in the classroom away from group instruction allows privacy time for individual students. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
5. Storage for student materials is adequate. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
6. Storage for teacher materials is adequate. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
7. Classrooms can be arranged to enhance the teaching/learning objectives. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3 150
Strongly Agree 4
8. The school facility is adaptable to users needs. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
9. The school facility accommodates a variety of learning styles of students. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
10. Large flexible space and/or workstations are available to accommodate student projects. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
11. Computers in classrooms and computer labs have functional furniture designed for their use. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
12. Classrooms have telephones for communicating both within and outside facility. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
13. Classrooms have logical, well-designed, integrated technolog y systems. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
14. School has technology plan that includes development of environment for interdisciplinary teaming. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
15. Classrooms have computers that are networked for both intranet and internet utilization. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3 151
Strongly Agree 4
16. There are sufficient and well located electrical outlets available in the instructional areas of the building. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Specialized Learning Space
17. Size of specialized learning areas meet state standards. (e.g. computer classrooms are a minimum of 900 sq. ft.). Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
18. Design of specialized learning areas are compatible with instructional needs of students. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
19. Library/Resource/Media Center provides appropriate space, occupies a space of a minimum of 2,100 sq. ft. and acts as an instructional lab. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
20. Gymnasium facilities adequately serve physical education instruction. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
21. Outdoor facilities adequately serve physical education instruction. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
22. Music programs are provided adequate sound-treated space. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
23. Space for art is appropriate for instruction and supplies/equipment are adequate. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree 152
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 24. Science program is provided sufficient space and equipment with science lecture-lab rooms a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
25. Science lab equipment has been updated less than five years age to meet current standards. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
26. Utilities such as gas, water, and electricity are available and are in usable condition in science labs. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
27. Room design for technology education maximizes the use of stat-of-the-art equipment. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
28. Space for small groups and remedial instruction is provided adjacent to the classrooms. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
29. Academic team/department members occupy specific areas together within the school building or are organized by pods. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
30. The media center is well equipped with computers. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
153
31. There are conference areas available for things such as team/department meetings, parent conferences, or faculty planning sessions. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Support Space
32. Teachers’ lounge and work areas support teachers as professionals. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
33. Cafeteria/kitchen is attractive with sufficient space for seating/dining, delivery, storage, and food preparation. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
34. Administrative offices are consistent in appearance and function with the maturity of students served. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
35. Counselor’s office insures privacy and sufficient storage. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
36. Clinic is near or can communicate with administrative offices and is equipped to meet requirements. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
37. Administrative personnel are provided sufficient work space and privacy. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
38. Teachers have their own office space (apart from their classroom) with access to telephones and computers. 154
Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
39. School facility has a teacher professional library that is accessible as well as current. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
40. The school facility permits teachers to function as professionals. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
41. Teacher parking is convenient and sufficient to accommodate building staff and campus visitors. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Community/Parent Space
42. Suitable reception space is available for students, teachers, and visitors so they feel welcome. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
43. The school building has meeting rooms for parents, and/or offices for volunteers and volunteer coordinators. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
44. The school facility is an integral part of the community in that it is utilized after school, evening, or weekends. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
45. The school building design incorporates community functions as a part of the normal operation of the school. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree 155
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
46. Common space, classrooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias, libraries, media centers, computer labs, and performing arts centers are available and used by the community for noneducational purposes. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
47. Utilization of facility reflects community values. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Environment for Education Exterior Environment
48. Overall design is aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for the age of the students. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
49. Exterior noise and surrounding environment do not disrupt learning. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
50. Entrances and walkways are sheltered from sun and inclement weather. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
51. Building materials provide attractive color and texture. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
52. Proper maintenance (exterior) of the school facility is a priority and vandalism and/or graffiti are repaired/removed quickly. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3 156
Strongly Agree 4
53. Site and building are well landscaped. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
54. Exterior walls, or windows and trim were painted less than 5 years age or are in excellent condition. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
55. Location of facility enhances the learning climate of the school. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Interior Environment
56. Color schemes, building materials, and décor provide an impetus to learning. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
57. Year around comfortable temperature and humidity are provided throughout the building. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
58. The floor plan of the building helps direct student movement and minimizes student disruptions. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
59. Ventilating system provides adequate quiet circulation of clean air and meets Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) standard. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
60. Lighting systems provide proper intensity, diffusion, and distribution of illumination. 157
Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
61. Sufficient drinking fountains and restroom facilities are convenientl y located per building codes. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
62. Communication among students is enhanced by common areas. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
63. Appropriate foyers and corridors aid traffic flow. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
64. Areas for students to interact are suitable to the age group. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
65. Large group areas are designed for effective management of students. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
66. Acoustical treatment of ceilings, walls, and floors provide effective soun d control. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
67. The majority of classrooms have windows. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
68. Classroom furniture ad equipment is moveable and can be arranged in different ways facilitating group projects and various activities or in accordance with the prescribed methodology. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree 158
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
69. Classroom furniture is functionally sound and facially attractive. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
70. With the exception of gym, music, shop, home economics, and art classrooms are carpeted. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
71. Proper maintenance (interior) of school facility is a priority and v andalism or graffiti are repaired/removed quickly. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
72. Custodial daily routines are effective in keeping keep ing facility clean and attractive. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
73. The condition of your facility is excellent both cosmetically and structurally. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
74. There are a variety of places, both inside and outside of the school, where students can meet together in both small and large groups. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
75. The school facility fosters communication. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
76. The school facility creates an appropriate behavioral setting. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree 159
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
77. There are no visible indications i ndications of roof leaks in the school facility. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
78. Interior walls, including classroom spaces, were painted less that 8 years age or are in excellent condition. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
Visual Reinforcement
79. There are numerous displays or students’ work inside each classroom and on many corridor walls. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
80. Classroom rules and consequences are posted in each room. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
81. Student and class accomplishments are highlighted in the classroom. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
Strongly Agree 4
82. There are posters, mobiles, or displays relating to topics being studied. Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Agree 3
160
Strongly Agree 4
APPENDIX C. ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCR IPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS (OCDQ-RS) Directions: The following are statements about your school. Please indicate the extent to
which each statement characterizes your school by circling the appropriate response. RO=RARELY OCCURS
SO=SOMETIMES OCCURS
O=OFTEN OCCURS
VFO=VERY FREQUENTLY OCCURS
1. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying…………. RO SO O VFO 2. Teachers have too many committee requirements………………… RO SO O VFO 3. Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems……………………………………….……… RO SO O VFO 4. Teachers are proud of their school………………………………… RO SO O VFO 5. The principal sets an example by working hard himself/herself…………………………………………………….. RO SO O VFO 6. The principal compliments teachers……………………………….. RO SO O VFO 7. Teacher-principal conferences are dominated by the principal……………………………………………………………. RO SO O VFO 8. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching…………………. RO SO O VFO 9. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking in faculty meetings…………………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
10. Student government has an influence on school policy…………… RO SO O VFO 11. Teachers are friendly with students……………………………….. RO SO O VFO 12. The principal rules with an iron fist………………………………. RO SO O VFO 13. The principal monitors everything teachers do…………………… RO SO O VFO 14. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school……………………………………………………………
161
RO SO
O VFO
15. Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school………… RO SO
O VFO
16. Teachers help and support each other……………………………. RO SO
O VFO
17. Pupils solve their problems through logical reasoning …………….RO SO
O VFO
18. The principal closely checks teacher activities………………
RO SO
O VFO
19. The principal is autocratic………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
20. The morale of teachers is high…………………………………
RO SO O VFO
21. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members…………………………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
22. Assigned non-teaching duties are excessive……………………… RO SO O VFO 23. The principal goes out of his/her way to help teachers………
RO SO O VFO
24. The principal explains his/her reason for criticism to teachers…………………………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
25. The principal is available after school to help teachers when assistance is needed……………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
26. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home…
RO SO O VFO
27. Teachers socialize with each other on a regular basis……………
RO SO O VFO
28. Teachers really enjoy working here……………………………
RO SO O VFO
29. The principal uses constructive criticism…………………………
RO SO O VFO
30. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of the faculty……………………………………………………………
RO SO O VFO
31. The principal supervises teachers closely………………………
RO SO O VFO
32. The principal talks more than listens……………………………… RO SO O VFO 33. Pupils are trusted to work together without supervision…………
RO SO O VFO
34. Teachers respect the personal competence of their colleagues…
RO SO O VFO
162
