Poor physical plant affects student achievement, discipline
(From American Teacher, Nov. 1997)

There is growing evidence that the physical condition of schools has a direct effect on achievement and discipline. A 1991 study of the District of Columbia schools, for example, found that standardized achievement scores among students in buildings in poor condition were 6 percent lower than schools in fair condition and 11 percent below schools in excellent condition. In a district that has been plagued by fire code violations and other problems with physical facilities, in 1997 D.C. schools did not even open until late September because court-ordered repairs had not been completed.

Two separate studies of Virginia high schools also found direct correlations between building conditions and student achievement. The first, a 1993 study of small, rural schools, found that student scores on achievement tests, adjusted for socioeconomic status, were up to 5 percentile points lower in buildings with lower-quality ratings. Poor achievement was associated with specific factors, such as substandard science facilities, air conditioning, locker conditions, classroom furniture and graffiti. In the second study, conducted in 1996 on large, urban schools, student achievement was found to be as many as 11 percentile points lower in substandard buildings as compared to above-standard buildings.

Other studies point to the impact that poor building conditions have on teaching. A 1988 study of working conditions in urban schools found that "physical conditions have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom and general learning environment."

"There's a preponderance of evidence that shows the relationship between building conditions and achievement," notes Glen I. Earthman, director of the National Clearinghouse for Education Facilities. Although the percentile differences may be small, anything that helps is crucial to a principal or superintendent looking for ways to boost achievement, he adds. Educators can't control a child's home life, parental involvement or socioeconomic status, "but we can control whether or not students are in a safe, functional and efficient building."

As urban schools succumb to vandalism, and little or no maintenance is done, the school climate also deteriorates, warned the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in its 1988 report, An Imperiled Generation: Saving Urban Schools. "The general appearance speaks of an uncaring place. The atmosphere of neglect reflects itself in the carelessness of students," noted the report, in behavior such as tardiness, disruption of lessons and disrespect toward school staff.

"I think there is a strong relationship between the condition of schools and the attitude of students and staff," says Earthman, who in a 1995 study found a higher incidence of suspensions, expulsions and violence/substance abuse in substandard buildings.

But Earthman also found that the better-maintained schools had more reported discipline incidents, which he believes may be due to a lower tolerance for disrespect and disorder. "In a school in good condition, if a student runs a marker across the wall, he or she is likely to be disciplined," he says. "In a school that is already full of graffiti, people may think 'so what?' There's a sense that nothing can be done about it."

For more information about the clearinghouse, visit its Web site at www.edfacilities.org.