Experts+Say+School+buildings+affect+learning

= When facilities are clean, comfortable and well-equipped, student performance improves = = = = By Bob Ortega = = //Published in the Arizona Republic// = =//5/22/11//= = =

On a broiling August morning in the Valley, it's easy to appreciate how much it matters whether a __ [|school's] __ air-conditioning works. When the chillers broke down midmorning one day last August at Metro Tech High School in Phoenix, students were sent home until the school could craft a temporary fix. When a school's roof collapses, or when classrooms flood whenever it rains, as has happened at other Arizona schools in recent years, there's little or no debate about the need for repairs. But beyond such obvious examples, does spending more money to fix, improve or better equip school buildings actually help students learn any better? The evidence is clear and convincing that it does, says David C. Thompson, chairman of the department of educational leadership at Kansas State University. "Student performance and test scores point to the emergence of an absolutely indisputable outcome that surroundings matter," he said. "School infrastructure matters." Studies over the past two decades by Thompson and other researchers in Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere have consistently found that students score higher on standardized tests and feel more motivated when their classrooms are clean, comfortable and well-equipped. One 1993 D.C. study found that when school buildings were improved significantly, average student-achievement test scores at those schools climbed by 10.9 percent. At the most basic level, more than a dozen studies reported in various academic journals conclude that adequate heating or cooling, good lighting, good acoustics that eliminate excessive noise, adequate space per student and good indoor air quality all help student __ [|learning] __. Other studies have linked the quality of buildings to rates of student absenteeism. Across most of the country, of course, the wealthier the neighborhoods and the families who live there, the nicer the school facilities tend to be. But while family income, the home environment and other social factors __ [|makeadifference] __ in how well students learn, Thompson said that even after adjusting for those type of socioeconomic variables, and for the size and location of schools, "the better the facility, the better the outcome." While legal battles over education funding in various states go back more than a century, in 1991 Arizona became the first state to be sued specifically over funding for school construction and maintenance. The suit, led by the Roosevelt School District in south Phoenix, contended that the state's reliance on property taxes was unfair to poorer school districts and violated the state's constitutional obligation to provide a "general and uniform" public-school system. In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, noting that assessed property valuations in the state varied from as little as $749 per student at the San Carlos School District, east of Globe, to as much as $5.8 million per student at the Ruth Fisher Elementary School District (where the Palo Verde nuclear plant is located), more than 7,700 times higher. The differences meant that homeowners in property-poor districts, even taxing themselves at much higher rates, couldn't raise much money. In the Roosevelt district, for example, the school-bond tax rate of $4.37 per $100 of assessed valuation was roughly 40 times as high as the 11 cents per $100 in assessed valuation rate in the Ruth Fisher district. Court rulings eventually led to the creation of Arizona's School Facilities Board, which manages state funds for school construction and repair. Although the state built 295 new schools over the past decade, it has persistently provided far less funding for school renovation than state law and funding formulas call for. Some critics consider the Legislature's reluctance to provide more renovation funds understandable. "I don't think we can or should keep throwing money at school districts," says Matthew Ladner, a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute. Ladner questions whether spending money on school facilities offers good "bang for the buck" when Arizona students don't perform well on national tests. Others say that teacher quality also can be linked to the quality of school buildings. David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center in New Jersey, said: "Teachers get tired of working in lousy, inadequate, substandard, overcrowded buildings. It just wears them down."  Read more: [] = = = = = = = = = = =News= =home=