THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES ON THE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT

by

Bert Vandiver

Barry Persky, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

Douglas DeWitt, PhD, Committee Member

Joshua Fischer, PhD, Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, EdD, Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

January 2011

© Bert Vandiver, 2011

Abstract

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

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

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

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

questionnaires and interviews to identify and appraise school facilities and learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

educational adequacy of educational facilities were statistically significantly associated

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

iii

Dedication

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

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

iv

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

survey materials that gave me the results for this project.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 6

Research Questions 7

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 10

Assumptions 11

Limitations 12

Nature of the Study 12

Theoretical Framework 14

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Introduction 19

Theoretical Perspectives of Student Achievement and School Facilities 19

Theory of Teacher Attrition and Teacher Retention 21

Theoretical Perspectives of School Climate and the Learning Environment 22

vi

History of School Facilities 23

Condition of 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

vii

Data Analysis 89

Results 90

Summary 112

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114

Introduction 114

Summary of the Study 114

Summary of Findings and Conclusions 117

Recommendations 120

Implications 127

REFERENCES 127

APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 146

APPENDIX B. TOTAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 148

APPENDIX C. ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 160 APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 162

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Gender Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 84 Table 2. Racial Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 84 Table 3. Age Composition of Teachers in the Research Sample 85 Table 4. Educational Attainment of Teachers in the Research Sample 85 Table 5. Teaching Experience of Teachers in the Research Sample 86 Table 6. Number of Years at Current School for Teachers in the Research Sample 86 Table 7. Primary Teaching Position for Teachers in the Research Sample 87 Table 8. Primary Area of Certification of the Teachers in the Research Sample 88 Table 9. Number of Principals and Number of Years under Current Principal 88 Table 10. Mean Total Learning Environment Assessment Scores 92 Table 11. Age of Facility 92 Table 12. Years Last Renovation of the Facility 93 Table 13. Extent of Involvement of School Instructional Personnel in Renovation 93 Table 14. Degree Instructional Philosophy is Integrated into the Learning Environment 94 Table 15. Portable Buildings Utilized as Classrooms on Campus 94 Table 16. Mean Student Performance by Subject Area: Before and After New Facility 95 Table 17. Student Achievement Comparison z-Test Results 97 Table 18. Mean Teacher Turnover Rate: Before and After New Facility 98 Table 19. Teacher Turnover Rate Comparison z-Test Results 99 Table 20. Mean Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Scores 100 Table 21. Mean, Median, and Mode for Supportive Principal Items 102

ix

Table 22. Mean, Median, and Mode for Directive Principal Items 104 Table 23. Mean, Median, and Mode for Engaged Teacher Items 106 Table 24. Mean, Median, and Mode for Frustrated Teacher Items 108 Table 25. Mean, Median, and Mode for Intimate Teacher Items 110

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of Students Passing 96 Figure 2. Percentage of Teacher Turnover 98 Figure 3. Histogram for Supportive Principal Dimension 101 Figure 4. Histogram for Directive Principal Dimension 103 Figure 5. Histogram for Engaged Teacher Dimension 106 Figure 6. Histogram for Frustrated Teacher Dimension 107 Figure 7. Histogram for Intimate Teacher Dimension 109

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

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

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

maintaining the 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 Schneider (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

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

school buildings paid three times—for skilled jobs in local communities, in the quality that

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

basis (Bullock, 2007; Cash, 1993).

The enactment on NCLB mandated accountability for academic achievement for

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

physical school facility. Research literature indicated that student achievement depended

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

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

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

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

curriculum played a vital role in a 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 declining enrollments; Filardo, 2008)

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

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

motivation and student achievement (Filardo, 2008).

5

Statement of the Problem

The problem was that school facilities were negatively impacting student learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

between learning and school facilities.

Purpose of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

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

educational environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

school facilities (Filardo, 2008).

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

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

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

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

just speaking about the buildings themselves, but what we need these buildings 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 10-

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

7

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

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

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

school facilities.

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

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

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

students’ performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

teaching and learning.

Research Questions

These questions guided this research study:

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

facilities have on the learning environment, student performance and

8

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

Environment Assessment (TLEA)?

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

facilities have on the student performance and achievement as characterized by

the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)?

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

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

Education Information Management System (PEIMS)?

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

facilities have on the school climate as characterized by the Organizational

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

Significance of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

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

should be provided at all times.

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

environment significantly impacts students’ academic achievement. The NPTA believed

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

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

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

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

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

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

security, and administration—need for electrical upgrades, video, data 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 school

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

helped to increase student performance. Educational leaders must understand the

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

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

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

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

Texas.

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

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

10

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

improvements in the state of Texas and the 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 study:

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

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

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

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

on population, staffing, and finance.

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

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

Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, 2008).

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

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

building (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2008).

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

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

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

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

School design patterns. Physical arrangements of the environmental components

with which students interact (Tanner, 2000).

11

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

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

Student performance and achievement. The number of students passing Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumptions

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

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

objectively.

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

the questionnaires.

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

12

Limitations

The following limitations were noted for this study:

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

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

2. Data collection was restricted to these 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 environment. According to Lane, Bishop,

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006).

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

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

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

13

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

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

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

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

northeast Texas. The questionnaire included educational adequacy; academic learning

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 secondary

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

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

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

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

A demographic questionnaire was developed and administered to the teachers.

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

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

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

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

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

14

used open-ended questions in the interviews that were used in 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 by the school district office

for 2007-2008 academic years.

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

the TEA. Scores for student performance and achievement will be gathered from 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 data were gathered from the Texas

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

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

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

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

capabilities for this research study.

Theoretical Framework

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

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

15

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

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

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

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

pedagogical philosophy (Akinsanmi, 2008).

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

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

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

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

learned appropriate as well as inappropriate behavior from positive or negative

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

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

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

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

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

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

classroom wings were laid out like an assembly line, and the 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).

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America’s schools, good facilities were an important precondition for student learning,

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

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

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

17

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

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

Tanner and 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 summary. Chapter 3 presents the

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

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

18

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

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

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

January and concluding in September.

19

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

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

educational environment. This chapter examined the theoretical perspectives of student

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

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

condition of America’s schools, school facilities and student performance and achievement,

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

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

of high performing schools, and summary.

Theoretical Perspectives of Student Achievement and School Facilities

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

shown in their research that school 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

20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the school facility and students’ reading achievement scores.

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

research had demonstrated that there was a relationship between student performance

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

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

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

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

Lackney and Chang (1992) concluded that

Studying building conditions and educational adequacy within the context of

historical change in the school districts’ referendums and building programs,

provides unique opportunities to understand how and why improving facilities

conditions and educational adequacy across the district may influence outcomes and

may provide more substantial and robust evidence for the relationship between

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

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

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

21

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

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

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

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

modernization of educational facilities. Driven by two 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 monetary and nonmonetary benefits

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

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

22

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

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

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

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

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

premiums (Kirby et al., 1993).

Teacher Retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23

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

2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on educators’ and learners’ interpersonal relationships as well as learners’ academic

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

History of School Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

building construction that allowed for further experimentation in flexible and adaptable

space for education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disbursed $34 million dollars for school facilities buildings.

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

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

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

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

25

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

building model was more meaningful and sophisticated. It includes the (a) 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 addition or

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

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

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

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

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

configured during their lives; (e) 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

26

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

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

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

electrical power (p. 2).

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

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

2008) pointed out that the federal government had not assessed the condition of 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 upgrade existing schools nationwide (pp. 5-6). GAO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States (p. 1). The ASCE (2008a) found that the average age of the 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 versus urban), and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many research studies indicated that many school buildings were either inadequate

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

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

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

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

condition of 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 many school districts throughout the

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

29

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

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

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

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

United States Department of Education, 2000).

Age and Quality of School Facilities

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

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

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

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

districts within the states,

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

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

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

maintained building. (p. 4)

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

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

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

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

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

Research studies were uncovering evidence that showed these environmental nuisances and

other aspects of school facilities had a large negative impact on children’s education. Age is

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

30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31

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

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

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

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

physical environment conducive to student learning.

Facility Management

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

public funds, and their development and maintenance were cogent administrative

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

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

management for the following reasons: (a) at least 25% of the 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 other words, superintendents had to provide

more services for less money (Kowalski).

32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

school site (Lackney & Picus, 2008).

The challenges facing school systems required community efforts to be combined

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

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

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

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

Equity in School Facilities Funding

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

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

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

the 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

33

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

maintenance, usually school personnel postponed the necessary additions or improvements

to existing buildings (Agron).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will be a local responsibility (Haas).

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

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

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

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

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

requirement (Haas).

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

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

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

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

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

34

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

Under this system, the size of the matching rate was related to the district’s property wealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bonds and lease-purchase agreements (TASB).

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

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

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

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

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

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

school years (TASB).

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

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

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

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

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

35

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

facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Facilities and Student Performance and Achievement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36

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

learning patterns and methods.

According to the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issues (TACR, 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schneider, 2002).

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

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

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

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

37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1998), Earthman (2002), Hines (1996), and 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

38

Tanner contended that visual environment 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 fostered higher student achievement (Lemasters, 1997;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

test scores and promoted better health and physical development—and could be attained

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

39

Color Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

span and affected the student and teacher’s sense of time (Jago & Tanner).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinofsky & Knirck, 1981).

Indoor Air Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40

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

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

students and teachers.

Poor indoor air quality had been associated with increased student absenteeism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nations’ schools had poor indoor air quality.

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

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

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

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

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

in the classroom.

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

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

inside public school facilities had a significantly affect on student’s ability to concentrate.

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

41

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

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

School administrators must recognize the logical inference that the physical well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temperature, Humidity, and Thermal Quality

Schneider (2002) showed that temperature and humidity affected indoor air quality.

Indoor air quality promoted or inhibited the presence of bacteria and mold (Schneider,

2002). Wyon (2000) studies had shown that student performance at mental tasks was

42

affected by changes in temperature. Harner (1974) found that the best temperature range for

reading and math was 68 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit. The students’ ability to learn the reading

and math was adversely affected when the temperature above 74 degrees Fahrenheit. As the

temperature and humidity increased, students’ discomfort increased, and their achievement

and task-performance deteriorated as attention spans decreased (King & Marans, 1979;

Schneider, 2002).

According to Earthman (2002), good thermal environment of a classroom was very

important to efficient student performance. Research in the past had shown that increases in

temperatures in the workplace tended to decrease worker efficiency and increased the risk of

work related accidents. Harner (1964), Mayo (1955), and Nolan (1960) concluded that the

importance of a controlled thermal environment was stressed as necessary for satisfactory

student performance. In spite of the age of all of these research studies, these findings were

just as germane today as they were a century ago (Earthman, 2002).

Acoustic Quality

According to Earthman (2002), proper and accurate hearing in the classroom was

essential to a 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 noise, students do not

perform well” (p. 5).

43

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 autonomous 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).

44

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 more 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 moderate 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 NCLB, 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).

45

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

46

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

47

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” (Buckley 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

48

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 opportunities for

growth and influence beyond the classroom; and (h) facilities that were safe and well-

equipped (Johnson, 2006). If teachers felt that their workplaces had failed them, there was a

good chance that these teachers would transfer to another school or just left the teaching

profession altogether (Johnson). Schools must become places where students 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 accommodations, small classrooms,

and inadequate lab space were deterrents to their job of educating children and job

satisfaction (Schneider, 2003).

49

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 teacher 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

50

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). Research 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 faculty

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).

51

The consensus among educators and researchers was that the most important factor

in determining student performance was the quality of his or her teachers (AEE, 2005).

Therefore, it was critical that educators must make every 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 teachers 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

52

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. Darling-

Hammond 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

53

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, cost-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

54

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 concentrate, 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 asthma and other

illnesses that caused students to have difficulty in concentrating and lower achievement; (b)

noise—poor acoustics in classroom that caused classroom disruption and outside 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

55

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

56

performance schools and effectively managing priorities, time, and budget during the design

and construction (EPA). High performance schools referred to the physical 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 healthy 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 cost-

effective 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

57

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 educational outcomes.

O’Neill (2000) investigated the relationship between student achievement, school

facilities, attendance, behavior, and teacher turnover 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.

58

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

59

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 conditions

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 teachers 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.

60

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 morale, 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 achievement, 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 school schedules, school size, course

sequences, curriculum and instruction as well as the political relations between the school,

61

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 found that the benefits 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).

62

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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 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:

63

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 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 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

64

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.

65

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 methods 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).

66

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

67

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 contact, (b)

flexibility to give follow-up questions, (c) opportunity to clarify questions, (d) could judge

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

68

pertaining to teacher turnover rate were provided for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-

2008 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

69

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 Appendix

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 they 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

70

(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) added 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

71

(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 34-

item climate instrument with five dimensions describing the behavior of secondary

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 constant 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

72

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.

73

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 could 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-ended 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.). There 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, then 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).

74

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 for 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 validity.

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

75

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 provide 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

76

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 under 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 data were gathered from the Texas

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

2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years.

77

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

78

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 analysis 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 Language 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.

79

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

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 Schools (OCDQ-RS).

Multiple regression models were derived using school climate and culture scores as the

dependent variable as reported by 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 ethical issues

80

occurred because there was no exchange of money. An informed consent form was given to

all participants in the study. According to Sparknotes (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 the 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 personal information.

Summary

This research study examined the impact of quality 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 facility design 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. 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 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

81

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 quantitative 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).

82

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:

83

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, age,

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

84

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

85

between 40 and 49 (years of age 31.3%). However, teacher age ranged from under 30 years

to 60 years and over.

86

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%

Total 16 100.0% The educational attainment of the research sample of teachers is provided in Table 4.

The results indicate that the vast majority of the teachers 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%).

87

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%

88

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.

89

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

90

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 turn-

over 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

91

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 z-

test for proportions is used to determine if two proportions or percentages 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

92

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 adequate to high

quality educational facilities.

93

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%

94

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 extent 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%

95

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 campus (100.0%).

Table 15. Portable Buildings Utilized as Classrooms on Campus

Portable buildings Frequency Percent

Yes 0 00.0%

No 3 100.0%

Total 3 100.0%

96

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 (2004-

2005 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

97

in all subject areas with the exception of English/language arts. Overall, English language

arts performance has remained relatively stable.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Per

cen

t of s

tud

ents

pas

sin

g

ELA Mathematics Science Social studies All tests

Figure 1. Percentage of students passing

The time series chart illustrates the performance trend lines based on 9th 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

98

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-

99

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).

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Per

cent

of t

each

ers

turn

ing

over

Teacher turnover

Figure 2. Percentage of teacher turnover

100

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 Before After z p

Teacher turnover 17% 6% 1.57 0.116

The results for research question two indicate 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

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

101

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.

102

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

103

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 example 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.

104

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;

105

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 engagement 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.

106

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

107

“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, suggesting 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.

108

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

109

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.

110

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 when they are talking

in faculty meetings.

111

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 indicate 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 teacher-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

112

• 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

113

• 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 have 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 storage area is too

small

The results for research question three gives evidence supporting the idea that changing the

facilities creates a different learning environment. Creating change has a major impact on

students, faculty, and administrators. This change creates the type 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.

114

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 analysis 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 provided.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

115

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 and

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

116

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 building safety

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

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

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

located in northeast Texas.

The 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 secondary

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

117

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 by 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 school. 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

118

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

119

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 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 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

120

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

121

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 completed; (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)

122

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 encourage 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).

123

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, co-

operative, and experiential (Akinsanmi, 2010). School administrators, architects, engineers,

and facility planners of physical learning environments must 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 constructivism-

learning theories. Educators and school administrators must also ensure that the educational

specifications they work with reflect the appropriate learning theory.

Recommendations for Future Research

124

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 external approach.

125

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 language arts portions of

the TAKS. For this reason, school administrators should be guided to further research

studies that relate to design, construction, and maintenance 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.

126

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

127

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.

128

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}&notoc=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

129

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.

130

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.

131

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 http://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/csf- home/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

132

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 Small 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

133

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/wws08- Earthman.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.

134

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.

135

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

136

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

137

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).

138

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 July 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.

139

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.

140

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.

141

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, 2008, 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-rr007-1002

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 9807080).

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.

142

Randeree, E. (2006). Structural barriers: redesigning schools to create learning 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.

143

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-A12C- 40AA77DB5A13/0/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

144

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

145

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. GAO- ED3830). 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

146

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.magellan-

k12.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

147

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 follow-up 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 African- Hispanic Asian American Indian Non - Hispanic American 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 26-30 30+ Other (Please specify: __________________)

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

148

______Health Occupations ______Other (Please specify: _____________________ 7. Your total number of years at current school

0-5 6-12 13-20 21-25 26-30 30+ Other (Please specify: ___________________) 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)

149

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 instructional

personnel involved in the planning process with building designers? To a great extent _______ To some extent _______ Limited extent _______ Not at all _______ Unknown _______

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 _______

150

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 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

2. Classroom space permits arrangements for small group activity.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

3. Location of academic learning areas is near related educational activities and away from

disruptive noises.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

4. Personal space in the classroom away from group instruction allows privacy time for

individual students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

5. Storage for student materials is adequate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

6. Storage for teacher materials is adequate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

7. Classrooms can be arranged to enhance the teaching/learning objectives.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

151

8. The school facility is adaptable to users needs.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

9. The school facility accommodates a variety of learning styles of students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

10. Large flexible space and/or workstations are available to accommodate student projects.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

11. Computers in classrooms and computer labs have functional furniture designed for

their use.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

12. Classrooms have telephones for communicating both within and outside facility.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

13. Classrooms have logical, well-designed, integrated technology systems.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

14. School has technology plan that includes development of environment for

interdisciplinary teaming.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

15. Classrooms have computers that are networked for both intranet and internet utilization.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

152

16. There are sufficient and well located electrical outlets available in the instructional areas

of the building.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 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 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

18. Design of specialized learning areas are compatible with instructional needs of students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 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 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

20. Gymnasium facilities adequately serve physical education instruction.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

21. Outdoor facilities adequately serve physical education instruction.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

22. Music programs are provided adequate sound-treated space.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

23. Space for art is appropriate for instruction and supplies/equipment are adequate.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

153

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 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

25. Science lab equipment has been updated less than five years age to meet current

standards.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

26. Utilities such as gas, water, and electricity are available and are in usable condition in

science labs.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

27. Room design for technology education maximizes the use of stat-of-the-art equipment.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

28. Space for small groups and remedial instruction is provided adjacent to the classrooms.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

29. Academic team/department members occupy specific areas together within the school

building or are organized by pods.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

30. The media center is well equipped with computers.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

154

31. There are conference areas available for things such as team/department meetings, parent conferences, or faculty planning sessions.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4

Support Space

32. Teachers’ lounge and work areas support teachers as professionals.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

33. Cafeteria/kitchen is attractive with sufficient space for seating/dining, delivery, storage,

and food preparation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

34. Administrative offices are consistent in appearance and function with the maturity of

students served.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

35. Counselor’s office insures privacy and sufficient storage.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

36. Clinic is near or can communicate with administrative offices and is equipped to meet

requirements.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

37. Administrative personnel are provided sufficient work space and privacy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

38. Teachers have their own office space (apart from their classroom) with access to

telephones and computers.

155

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

39. School facility has a teacher professional library that is accessible as well as current.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

40. The school facility permits teachers to function as professionals.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

41. Teacher parking is convenient and sufficient to accommodate building staff and campus

visitors.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

Community/Parent Space 42. Suitable reception space is available for students, teachers, and visitors so they feel

welcome.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

43. The school building has meeting rooms for parents, and/or offices for volunteers and

volunteer coordinators.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

44. The school facility is an integral part of the community in that it is utilized after school,

evening, or weekends.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

45. The school building design incorporates community functions as a part of the normal

operation of the school.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

156

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 non-educational purposes.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 47. Utilization of facility reflects community values.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

Environment for Education

Exterior Environment 48. Overall design is aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for the age of the students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

49. Exterior noise and surrounding environment do not disrupt learning.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

50. Entrances and walkways are sheltered from sun and inclement weather.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

51. Building materials provide attractive color and texture.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

52. Proper maintenance (exterior) of the school facility is a priority and vandalism and/or

graffiti are repaired/removed quickly.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

157

53. Site and building are well landscaped.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

54. Exterior walls, or windows and trim were painted less than 5 years age or are in

excellent condition.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

55. Location of facility enhances the learning climate of the school.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

Interior Environment 56. Color schemes, building materials, and décor provide an impetus to learning.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

57. Year around comfortable temperature and humidity are provided throughout the

building.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

58. The floor plan of the building helps direct student movement and minimizes student

disruptions.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

59. Ventilating system provides adequate quiet circulation of clean air and meets Indoor Air

Quality (IAQ) standard.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

60. Lighting systems provide proper intensity, diffusion, and distribution of illumination.

158

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

61. Sufficient drinking fountains and restroom facilities are conveniently located per

building codes.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

62. Communication among students is enhanced by common areas.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

63. Appropriate foyers and corridors aid traffic flow.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

64. Areas for students to interact are suitable to the age group.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

65. Large group areas are designed for effective management of students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

66. Acoustical treatment of ceilings, walls, and floors provide effective sound control.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

67. The majority of classrooms have windows.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

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 Strongly Agree

159

1 2 3 4 69. Classroom furniture is functionally sound and facially attractive.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

70. With the exception of gym, music, shop, home economics, and art classrooms are

carpeted.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

71. Proper maintenance (interior) of school facility is a priority and vandalism or graffiti are

repaired/removed quickly.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

72. Custodial daily routines are effective in keeping facility clean and attractive.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

73. The condition of your facility is excellent both cosmetically and structurally.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 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 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

75. The school facility fosters communication.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

76. The school facility creates an appropriate behavioral setting.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

160

1 2 3 4 77. There are no visible indications of roof leaks in the school facility.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

78. Interior walls, including classroom spaces, were painted less that 8 years age or are in

excellent condition.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

Visual Reinforcement 79. There are numerous displays or students’ work inside each classroom and on many

corridor walls.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

80. Classroom rules and consequences are posted in each room.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

81. Student and class accomplishments are highlighted in the classroom.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

82. There are posters, mobiles, or displays relating to topics being studied.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4

161

APPENDIX C. ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION 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…………………………………………………………… RO SO O VFO

162

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

163

APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Given the opportunity to design an educational facility, name the five features found in your present facility, which you would not include as they hinder the instructional effectiveness of your building.

2. Given the opportunity to design an educational facility, name the five features found in

your present facility, which you would include to aid the instructional effectiveness of your building.

3. Given opportunity to design an educational facility, name five features not found in your

present facility, which you would include to aid the instructional effectiveness of your building.

4. Please give any comments regarding the possible relationship between building

design/condition, student achievement, school climate, and teacher retention.