Journal of Educational Administration

Spending on school infrastructure: does money matter?

Faith E. Crampton

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Faith E. Crampton, (2009),"Spending on school infrastructure: does money matter?", Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 47 Iss 3 pp. 305 - 322
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955755
Downloaded on: 11 November 2014, At: 02:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1153 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Jean Giles-Sims, Joanne Connor Green, Charles Lockhart, (2012),"Countervailing Influences of Black
and Women Legislators on State Age Friendliness", Research in the Sociology of Health Care, Vol. 30 pp.
235-259
Patti Mersmann, Jim Bingham, Jerry Crow, William Crowe, Jane Hatch, Patti Mersmann, Michael Piper,
(1996),"Kansas: Library technology initiatives", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 14 Iss 2/3 pp. 125-130
Jean Giles-Sims, Charles Lockhart, (2007),"Disparities in Medicaid support for and the quality of nursing
facility long-term care across the states", Research in the Sociology of Health Care, Vol. 25 pp. 125-148

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Spending on school
infrastructure: does money
matter?
Faith E. Crampton

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Department of Administrative Leadership,

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Spending
on school
infrastructure
305
Received January 2009
Revised February 2009
Accepted February 2009

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to further develop an emerging thread of quantitative
research that grounds investment in school infrastructure in a unified theoretical framework of
investment in human, social, and physical capital.
Design/methodology/approach To answer the research question, what is the impact of
investment in human, social, and physical capital on student achievement, the author uses canonical
analysis, a multivariate statistical approach that allows for multiple independent and dependent
variables. The null hypothesis is selected given the limited body of research on this question, and the
state is selected as the unit of analysis. Level of student poverty is added as a control variable given an
extensive body of research that supports its negative impact on achievement. Descriptive statistics are
generated as well as a Pearson product moment correlation matrix to diagnose and address potential
issues of multicollinearity and simultaneity. Three national databases are used: United States Census
Bureau, US Department of Educations National Assessment of Educational Progress test score
data, and the US Department of Educations Common Core of Data. Years analyzed are 2003, 2005,
and 2007.
Findings The results of the canonical analysis are robust, statistically significant, and
consistent over time. Investment in human, social, and physical capital accounts for between 55.8
and 77.2 percent of the variation in student achievement in fourth and eighth grade Reading and
Mathematics. Investment in human capital is consistently the largest influence on student
achievement followed by social and physical capital. The null hypothesis is rejected.
Originality/value This study advances the use of theory in explaining the impact of investment
in school infrastructure on student achievement, a feature which distinguishes it from much previous
research in this domain. The use of a theory also addresses a major weakness of traditional,
atheoretical education production function research. In addition, utilization of canonical analysis
rather than multiple regression to operationalize the theoretical model and analyze the
data represents an advance in research design and statistical analysis for this type of research
question.
Keywords Schools, School buildings, Students, Expenditure, Human capital, United States of America
Paper type Research paper

At a time of severely constrained resources in the United States, coupled with

heightened expectations for student achievement and administrator accountability,
prudent allocation of education funds is necessary to maximize the impact of every
dollar. Under normal economic conditions, public elementary and secondary education
competes for funding at every level of government against other public programs and
services whose functions are also critical to the well-being of communities, states, and
the nation. In times of fiscal exigency when the pool of available resources shrinks or
stagnates, the competition is fiercer. At such times, spending on school facilities and

Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 47 No. 3, 2009
pp. 305-322
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230910955755

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

306

maintenance may be accorded low priority, based upon the belief that infrastructure
has no educational impact. Here, research can provide important insights for
policymakers and practitioners. This study follows an emerging thread of quantitative
research that seeks to ground investment in school infrastructure in a unified
theoretical framework of investment in human, social, and physical capital (Crampton,
2007). The paper begins with a background section offering a brief history of research
interest in the relationship between student outcomes and school infrastructure, and
the evolution of research methods to study it. The second section presents the
theoretical model used in this study, a model that contextualizes investment in school
infrastructure with investment in other research- and theory-based variables, and
contrasts this model with more traditional educational productivity research. In the
third section, this model is operationalized in a multivariate statistical approach that
captures multiple inputs and outputs, the latter being measures of student
achievement. The fourth, and final, section presents results of the analysis,
conclusions, and implications.
Background of the study
Educational researchers have long held an interest in the impact of the physical
environment of schools, here referred to as school infrastructure, on student learning
(Holy, 1932, 1935, 1938a, b), but until recently they lacked the sophisticated
quantitative tools and large databases to study it systematically. Nor has interest in
this relationship been limited to educational researchers. In Weinsteins (1979) review
of research, she noted related research from disciplines such as architecture, sociology,
and psychology. Further interest in this topic has been evidenced by studies in a
number of other disciplines where researchers have analyzed the effects of
infrastructure-related variables, such as lighting, color, thermal environment, and air
quality (Heschong Mahone Group, 1999; Ross and Walker, 1999). Most recently, studies
from a range of disciplines have analyzed the impact of environmentally sound or
green approaches to building and maintaining school facilities (National Research
Council, 2007).
The aforementioned lines of inquiry have employed a broad range of quantitative
and qualitative methodological approaches. However, in the 1980s, there occurred a
significant intersection in methodological approaches between schoolinfrastructure-related studies (McGuffey, 1982) and broader studies of the
relationship between educational inputs and student achievement commonly
referred to as production function research (Benson, 1978). Although the
underlying conceptual framework for production function research usually draws
upon the concepts of efficiency or productivity as derived from the disciplines of
economics and public finance, it should be noted that one of the earliest, and oft-cited,
production function studies, Equality of Educational Opportunity, was conducted by
sociologist Coleman et al. (1966). Still, beginning in the mid-1960s, this methodological
approach has been employed most widely by researchers interested in the economics of
education (Benson, 1978).
The major goal of production function research is to determine how to maximize
student achievement with a given set of inputs, which have often included types of
educational expenditures (Cohn and Geske, 1990; Monk, 1990; Thompson et al., 1994).
Over the course of almost four decades, the range of sophistication of the research

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

analyses used in these studies has varied greatly, with the most primitive correlating
types of education expenditure with a measure of student outcomes, e.g. a standardized
test or state assessment score (Stinson and Krahmer, 1969; Sharp, 1993). A larger
proportion of studies have sought to disaggregate total educational expenditures, for
example, to focus on the impact of instructional expenditures or teacher salaries and
related variables such as experience and education level. More sophisticated studies
have sought to control for variables outside the direct control of schools, such as
student poverty. These latter two groups of studies most commonly have used a
multivariate statistical approach such as multiple regression analysis to quantify the
relationship.
Multiple regression allows analysis of the impact of multiple independent variables
on a single dependent variable; and therein lies its strength and weakness. Overall, its
analytical capabilities are far superior to other approaches like simple correlation.
On one side of the equation, researchers are permitted to include an unlimited number
of variables that they hypothesize impact student learning. However, on the other side
of the equation, they can select only one student outcome. Realistically, student
achievement is multidimensional. For example, achievement scores on Reading and
Mathematics at a particular grade level do not occur independent of one another, and,
as such, multiple regression represents a less than optimal methodological approach
for this type of research question.
Second, the origin of the concept of production function lies with a private sector
manufacturing or factory model; as such, its application to education and student
achievement raises concerns about its appropriateness (Burkhead, 1973). A third
shortcoming in this body of research lies with its atheoretical approach to the selection
of production factors or independent variables. Without a strong theory base to guide
selection, results of education production function research over time have been uneven
and inconsistent (Hanushek, 1989; Hedges et al., 1994). Still, a number of educational
researchers interested in determining quantitatively the impact of school infrastructure
on student outcomes have adopted this approach (Crampton, 2003). Here too, the
results have been uneven for the same reasons. The challenges described
above provided a powerful incentive for the author to engage in theory building and to
explore other multivariate statistical approaches that might be more suited to this
research question.
Theoretical framework
Why is a theoretical framework necessary for a study that seeks to determine the
impact of investment in school infrastructure on student achievement? Pedhazur (1997)
offers a succinct rationale: [. . .] [M]ethods mean little unless they are integrated within
a theoretical framework (p. 1). Specifically, a theoretical framework guides researchers
in the selection of appropriate variables. Without such guidance, researchers cannot be
confident that the set of variables they have chosen is complete or relevant; and,
as such, the results of the statistical analysis may be flawed. A theoretical framework
also provides guidance for the generation and testing of hypotheses; and the
acceptance, rejection, and modification of these hypotheses over time furthers
knowledge in and understanding of a particular research problem.
As noted in the previous section, much production function research in general and
in the field of school infrastructure specifically has been atheoretical, which in turn has

Spending
on school
infrastructure
307

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

308

led to inconsistent results over time (See, for example, PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2003,
2001; Picus et al., 2005; Jones and Zimmer, 2001; Earthman, 1998; Earthman and
LeMasters, 1997). These inconsistencies pointed to the need for a unifying theory that
contextualizes investment in school infrastructure with other factors that impact
academic achievement (Crampton, 2007). The resulting theory linked investment in
school infrastructure to investment in human and social capital. The corollary to this
theoretical proposition is: investment in school infrastructure represents physical
capital that works in tandem with investments in human and social capital to build
capacity for increased student achievement.
Recent research on the development of education capacity for reform and greater
student success dovetails theoretically with human, social, and physical capital
development. The construct of educational capacity dates back to the 1970s but
re-emerged in the 1990s as a strategy to support education reforms that targeted
student achievement through the establishment of statewide standards, school and
district accountability measures, and high-stakes testing (Firestone and Pennell, 1997;
Gilley, 2000; Massell, 1998). Although early research on education capacity building
tended to focus on professional development activities for classroom teachers, the
concept has matured to acknowledge the role of human, physical, and fiscal resources
and their inter-relatedness. Although the importance of investments in human and
social capital in education is well-established in qualitative research (Corcoran and
Goertz, 1995; Spillane and Thompson, 1997; Massell, 1998), there is little quantitative
research, with the exception of the authors earlier cited study, that incorporates these.
Less well-established in qualitative research is the role of physical capital. Researchers
such as Spillane and Thompson (1997) have mentioned physical capital as part of this
emerging paradigm. Although their discussion was limited to fiscal resources, physical
capital generally is defined more broadly as physical inputs, of which infrastructure is
one (Cohn and Geske, 1990, p. 161).
Based upon Colemans 1988 work, Spillane and Thompson defined human capital
development as follows: [. . .] [H]uman capital is created by changes in persons that
bring about skills and capabilities that make them able to act in new ways (p. 190).
In building education capacity for reform, they operationalized this definition to refer
to teachers and administrators individual commitment to reform and their disposition
to learn new instructional strategies to improve student achievement. Social capital
referred to the creation and maintenance of professional networks and collegial
relations that supported instructional reforms to improve student outcomes.
In grounding education capacity in human, social, and physical capital development,
they also noted their interactive nature. As a result, the author developed and tested a
unified theory to underpin the analysis of factors which contribute to student
achievement. The next step was to operationalize the theory in a research design that
addressed the limitations of current methodological approaches.
Research design and methods
The research question that guided this study follows from the theory posited in the
introduction and developed in the previous section. As noted, this theory was
developed and initially tested by the author in an earlier study (Crampton, 2007).
The extension of that study to include another year of student achievement data was
the primary goal of this study in order to begin to create a longitudinal line of inquiry

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

that would strengthen the inferences that can be drawn from results. Investments in
human, social, and physical capital were operationalized as quantitatively measured
independent variables to determine their impact, on multiple measures of student
achievement. The primary research question was as follows: What is the impact of
investment in human, social, and physical capital on student achievement?
Data sources
Data for the study were drawn from national databases maintained by the Institute for
Education Sciences (2008a, b) and the US Census Bureau (2008a, b). Specific databases
utilized in the study were the Common Core of Data (CCD) and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); both are databases of the Institute for
Education Sciences. From the US Census Bureau (2008b), the public elementarysecondary education finance database was utilized.
Although all of the databases accessed for this study were longitudinal in nature,
shortcomings in the NAEP database limited the number of years available for analysis.
Even though NAEP test results date back to 1990, state-by-state data for student
achievement for fourth and eighth graders were available for only 2003 and 2005 when
the previous study was conducted. For this study, 2007 NAEP data were available. As
such, the reporting of results covers 2003, 2005, and 2007 NAEP scores for Reading and
Mathematics at the fourth and eight grades.
Definition of variables
In elementary and secondary education, human capital is often represented by the
quality of classroom teachers as evidenced by licensure in area of teaching, advanced
degrees, and years of experience (Plecki and Monk, 2003). However, such data on a
state-by-state basis were not available at the national level. Because level of
compensation, teacher experience, and advanced degrees are highly correlated, the
level of school district expenditure on instructional compensation from the US Census
Bureau public elementary-secondary database, was used as a proxy. Compensation
includes salary, wages, and benefits.
Social capital refers to professional networking and growth opportunities provided
to teachers, often through professional development activities. Investment in social
capital was measured by school district expenditure on instructional support. Data for
this variable were drawn from the category of expenditures labeled instructional staff
support, in the US Census Bureaus public elementary and secondary database, and
defined as follows: Expenditure for supervision of instruction service improvements,
curriculum development, instructional staff training, and media, library, audiovisual,
television, and computer-assisted instruction services (US Census Bureau 2008a, A-5).
Physical capital refers to the condition and adequacy of the physical environment of
schools. Investment in physical capital was defined as the level of school district
expenditure on school infrastructure and its maintenance from US Census Bureaus
public elementary and secondary database. School infrastructure is defined by the US
Census Bureau (2008a, A-1) as capital outlay and includes school construction (new,
renovations, additions) and land acquisition. This definition is consistent with the
authors definition of the components of school infrastructure (Table I). Interest on debt
associated with capital outlay was also included.

Spending
on school
infrastructure
309

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

310

Table I.
Comprehensive definition
of school infrastructure

Deferred maintenance

Deferred maintenance refers to maintenance necessary to bring a

school facility up to good condition; that is, a condition where only
routine maintenance is required. If a facility is in such poor
condition that it cannot be brought up to good condition, or if it
would cost more to do so than to construct a new facility, deferred
maintenance can refer to replacement of an existing facility
New construction
New construction may be a response to current overcrowding; to
federal, state, or local mandates that require additional facilities,
such as class-size reduction measures; or to projected enrollment
growth. The construction of a new facility includes the building(s);
grounds (purchase, landscaping, and paving); and fixtures, major
equipment, and furniture necessary to furnish it
Renovation
Renovation of an existing facility includes renovations for health,
safety, and accessibility for the disabled. Renovation may also
include renovations necessary to accommodate mandated
educational programs
Retrofitting
Retrofitting of an existing facility applies to such areas as energy
conservation (for example, installation of insulation or
energy-efficient windows) and technology readiness (for example,
electrical wiring, phone lines, and fiber optic cables)
Additions to existing facilities
Additions to existing facilities may be necessary to relieve
overcrowding; to meet federal, state, or local mandates, such as
class size reduction measures; or to accommodate projected
enrollment growth. The cost of additions usually includes the
fixtures, major equipment, and furniture necessary to furnish them
Major improvements to grounds Such as landscaping and paving
Notes: Some states use the term capital outlay rather than school infrastructure. Capital outlay is an
older and more traditional term. In some states, the definition of capital outlay may be broader than
that of school infrastructure. For example, capital outlay may include major equipment or equipment
above a certain purchase price. Depending on the definition of capital outlay in a particular state, a
wide range of equipment might be included from school buses to computers
Sources: Crampton et al. (2001) and Thompson et al. (2008)

Student achievement was measured using scores from fourth and eighth grade
Reading and Mathematics NAEP assessments for 2003, 2005, and 2007. NAEP can be
described as follows:
The NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what
Americas students know and can do in various subject areas. Assessments are conducted
periodically in Mathematics, Reading, Science, Writing, the Arts, Civics, Economics,
Geography, and US History. Since NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the
same sets of test booklets across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric for
all states and selected urban districts. The assessment stays essentially the same from year to
year, with only carefully documented changes. This permits NAEP to provide a clear
picture of student academic progress over time (Institute for Education Sciences, 2008b).

See Appendix 1 for a description of NAEP Reading performance scores and Appendix
2 for a description of NAEP Mathematics performance scores.
Student poverty, defined as the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch, was added as a control variable because of its historically strong negative
relationship with student achievement. The data source for this variable was the CCD.

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Hypothesis
Because the study tested a newly emerging theory, a conservative approach was
warranted in the form of a null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant
relationship between the independent variables of human, social, and physical capital
and the dependent variable of student achievement. This newly emerging theory, as
mentioned in the introduction, postulates that investment in human, social, and
physical capital work in tandem to enhance academic achievement. However, it is
important to note that the earlier study rejected the null hypothesis finding that
the independent variables had a statistically significant impact on student
achievement.
Unit of analysis
The unit of analysis for this study was the state where state data represented averages
for the school districts within their boundaries. The state was selected as the unit of
analysis because, constitutionally, funding of education is a state responsibility in the
United States (Thompson et al., 2008).
Methodology
The study utilized descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis to answer the
research question. Descriptive statistics, calculated for the independent and dependent
variables, primarily provided context for the multivariate analysis and included
standard measures such as the mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, variance,
and standard deviation. For the multivariate analysis, canonical analysis was utilized
rather than multiple regression. The primary advantage of canonical analysis is its
ability to utilize multiple dependent variables whereas multiple regression, as noted
earlier, is limited to a single dependent variable (Levine, 1977; Pedhazur, 1997). Because
of potential issues with multicollinearity and simultaneity, student poverty, defined as
the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, was converted to an
ordinal variable where: 1, low percentage of student poverty; 2, moderate percentage of
student poverty; 3, high percentage of student poverty; and 4, very high percentage of
student poverty.
The canonical analysis equation was formulated as follows:
Y 1t Y 2t Y 3t Y 4t b1 X 1t b2 X 2t b3 X 3t b4 X 4t ;
where Y1t, fourth grade Reading scores for state i for year t; Y1t, fourth grade
Mathematics scores for state i for year t; Y3t, eighth grade Reading scores for state i for
year t; Y4t, eighth Mathematics scores for state i for year t; b1-b4, structure coefficients;
X1t, per pupil expenditure on instructional compensation in state i for year t; X2t, per
pupil expenditure on instructional support in state i for year t; X3t, per pupil
expenditure on infrastructure in state i for year t; and X4t, student poverty in state i for
year t.
Results of the statistical analysis
Tables II and III provide descriptive statistics for the independent and dependent
variables. In 2003, states and local school districts spent approximately $236.0 billion
in instructional compensation, representing investment in human capital.
Expenditures ranged from $3,122 per pupil in Utah to $8,608 per pupil in New York.

Spending
on school
infrastructure
311

Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
independent and
dependent variables
131.13
687.32
556.18
326.08
353.55
113.52
50

748.32
3,227.49
2,479.17
1,656.66
1,698.59
508.27
50

12.6
65.7
53.1
32.6
36.1
11.7
49a

Student
poverty (%)
203
228
25
219
218
6.547
50

Reading
(fourth grade)

223
243
20
236
234
5.414
50

Mathematics
(fourth grade)

251
273
22
264
263
5.935
50

Reading
(eighth grade)

261
291
30
279
277
7.451
50

Mathematics
(eighth grade)

(b) Dependent variables: 2003 NAEP scale scores

Note: aTennessee did not report data for number of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch in 2003

3,122.89
8,608.68
5,485.79
4,650.30
4,850.75
1,126.189
50

(a) Independent variables: 2003

Infrastructure
Instructional
expenditure
support
($ per pupil)
($ per pupil)

312

Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Mean
SD
N

Instructional
compensation
($ per pupil)

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

JEA
47,3

3,186.57
9,120.87
5,934.29
4,745.17
5,052.07
1,219.34
50

131.75
701.43
569.68
345.34
361.36
109.85
50

1,033.01
3,375.71
2,342.70
1,679.98
1,776.64
499.24
50

(a) Independent variables: 2004

Infrastructure
Instructional
expenditure
support
($ per pupil)
($ per pupil)
16.6
64.4
47.8
34.6
37.8
10.4
47a

Student
poverty (%)
204
231
27
220
219
6.458
50

Reading
(fourth grade)
224
247
23
239
238
5.692
50

Mathematics
(fourth grade)

249
274
25
264
262
6.266
50

Reading
(eighth grade)

262
292
30
281
278
7.284
50

Mathematics
(eighth grade)

(b) Dependent variables: 2005 NAEP scale scores

Note: aKentucky, New York, and Tennessee did not report data for number of students receiving free and reduced price lunch in 2004

Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Mean
SD
N

Instructional
compensation
($ per pupil)

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Spending
on school
infrastructure
313

Table III.
Descriptive statistics for
independent and
dependent variables

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

314

Hawaii was closest to the mean per pupil instructional compensation of $4,850,
and California and Montana were closest to the median of $4,650. For instructional
support, which represented investment in social capital, states and local school
districts spent approximately $18.6 billion. Expenditures ranged from $131 per pupil in
Delaware to $687 per pupil in Massachusetts. Colorado was closest to the mean per
pupil expenditure of $353, and Missouri was closest to the median per pupil
expenditure of $326. In 2003, states and local school districts spent approximately
$82.8 billion for school infrastructure which represented investment in physical capital.
Expenditures ranged from $748 per pupil in Hawaii to $3,227 per pupil in
Alaska. Massachusetts was closest to the mean expenditure per pupil of $1,698 while
Georgia and Maine were closest to the median per pupil expenditure of $1,656. The
incidence of student poverty, measured as the percentage of students eligible for
free and reduced price lunch, ranged from 16.8 percent in New Hampshire to
65.7 percent in Kentucky. Illinois was closest to the mean incidence of student
poverty at 36.1 percent, and Indiana represented the median incidence at 32.6 percent
(Table II).
Table II presents descriptive statistics for fourth and eighth grade NAEP test scores
on Reading and Mathematics in 2003. For fourth grade Reading, scores ranged from
223 in New Mexico to 228 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Florida,
Idaho, and Oregon scored at the mean of 218 while six states Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia scored at the median of 219. For
fourth grade Mathematics, scores ranged from 223 in Alabama, Mississippi, and New
Mexico to 243 in New Hampshire. Florida scored at the mean of 234 with the following
eight states scoring at the median of 236: Delaware, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. For eighth grade Reading,
scores ranged from 251 in California and Hawaii to 273 in Massachusetts. No state
scored at the mean of 263 although six states Idaho, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington scored at the median of 264. For eighth grade
Mathematics, test scores ranged from 261 Mississippi to 291 in Minnesota. Delaware,
Illinois, South Carolina, and Texas scored at the mean of 277 while Alaska, Missouri,
and Pennsylvania scored at the median, 279.
Table III provides descriptive statistics for the independent variables in 2004. State
and local school districts spent approximately $245.2 billion in instructional
compensation with expenditures ranging from $3,186 per pupil in Utah to $9,120 in
New York. Virginia was closest to the mean of $5,052 with Montana closest to the
median of $4,745. Instructional support spending totaled approximately $20 billion
nationwide and ranged from $131 per pupil in Delaware to $701 in Massachusetts.
Kentucky was closest to the mean per pupil expenditure of $362, and Louisiana was
closest to the median of $345. Infrastructure expenditures, which totaled $94.7 billion,
ranged from $1,033 in Hawaii to $3,375 in Alaska. Georgia was closest to the mean
per pupil expenditure of $1,777 while Vermont was closest to the median of $1,680.
The incidence of students in poverty ranged from 16.6 percent in New Hampshire to
64.4 percent in Mississippi. Missouri was closest to the mean percentage of 37.8, and
Indiana had the median percentage of 34.6.
Table III presents descriptive statistics for the dependent variables in 2005. For
fourth grade Reading, scores ranged from 204 in Mississippi to 231 in Massachusetts.
Florida and Texas scored at the mean, 219, while Kansas, Kentucky, and Maryland

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

scored at the median, 220. For fourth grade Mathematics, scores ranged from 224 in
New Mexico to 247 in Massachusetts. Six states Maryland, Michigan,
Nebraska, New York, Oregon and South Carolina scored at the mean of 238 while
three states Colorado, Florida, and Utah scored at the median, 239. For eighth
grade Reading, scores ranged from 249 in Hawaii to 274 in Massachusetts. Utah scored
at the mean of 262 while Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, and Kentucky scored at the
median of 264. For eighth grade Mathematics, scores ranged from 262 in Alabama and
Mississippi to 292 in Massachusetts. Illinois and Maryland scored at the mean, 278,
with eight states scoring at the median of 281: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho,
Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
Table IV provides descriptive statistics for the independent variables in 2006.
Instructional compensation ranged from $3,443 per pupil in Utah to $10,285 in New
York for a total of $271.8 billion. Nebraska was closest to the mean of $5,512 per
pupil with Montana closest to the median of $5,200. Instructional support expenditures
totaled approximately $21.7 billion, ranging from $152 per pupil in Delaware to $733
in Massachusetts. Connecticut was closest to the mean per pupil expenditure of $412,
and Iowa was closest to the median of $404. In 2006, states and local school districts
spent $107.5 billion on school infrastructure. Expenditures ranged from $967
per pupil in Hawaii to $3,472 in Alaska. New Hampshire was closest to the mean per
pupil expenditure of $2001 while Georgia and New Mexico were closest to the
median of $1,853. The incidence of students in poverty ranged from 17.1 percent
in New Hampshire to 69.5 percent in Mississippi. Missouri was closest to
the mean percentage of 39.4, and Washington was closest to the median percentage
of 34.6.
Table IV presents descriptive statistics for the dependent variables in 2007. For
fourth grade Reading, scores ranged from 207 in Louisiana to 236 in Massachusetts.
Utah scored closest to the mean of 219, while Nebraska scored at the median, 223. For
fourth grade Mathematics, scores ranged from 228 in Mississippi and New Mexico to
252 in Massachusetts. Colorado scored closest to the mean of 240 while Idaho scored
closest at the median, 239. For eighth grade Reading, scores ranged from 250 in
Mississippi to 273 in Massachusetts and Vermont. Kentucky scored at the mean of 262
while Indiana scored at the median of 264. For eighth grade Mathematics, scores
ranged from 265 in Mississippi to 298 in Massachusetts. Utah scored at the mean, 281,
while Delaware scored at the median of 283.
Results of the canonical analysis are reported in Table V. These results were robust
and consistent over time. Overall, investment in human, social, and physical capital
accounted for between 55.8 and 77.2 percent of the variation in student achievement.
Specifically, in 2003, investment in human, social, and physical capital amounted
for 57.4 percent of the variation while in 2005, it accounted for 55.8 percent. This
percentage increased to 77.4 percent in 2007. An F-ratio and Bartlett x-square were
utilized to test the robustness of the model; both were statistically significant at the
0.001 level for the three years. The structure coefficient for the student poverty factor,
used as a control variable, was negative as expected, ranging from 2 0.464 to 2 0.947.
Of great concern was the large and growing negative impact of poverty on student
achievement. The structure coefficients[1] for the independent variables representing
investment in human, social, and physical capital were positive for all years studied,
indicating that instructional compensation, instructional support expenditures,

Spending
on school
infrastructure
315

Table IV.
Descriptive statistics for
independent and
dependent variables

3.342.70
10,285.10
6,842.40
5,200.15
5,511.99
1,310.07
50

152.30
733.20
580.90
404.15
412.41
124.15
50

966.90
3,471.63
2,504.73
1,852.57
2,001.38
572.03
50

(a) Independent variables: 2006

Infrastructure
Instructional
expenditure
support
($ per pupil)
($ per pupil)
17.1
69.5
52.4
37.1
39.4
10.3
50

Student
poverty (%)
207
236
28
223
221
6.30
50

Reading
(fourth grade)

228
252
25
241
240
5.78
50

Mathematics
(fourth grade)

250
273
23
264
262
6.24
50

Reading
(eighth grade)

265
298
33
283
281
7.46
50

Mathematics
(eighth grade)

(b) Dependent variables: 2007 NAEP scale scores

316

Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Mean
SD
N

Instructional
compensation
($ per pupil)

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

and infrastructure expenditures had a positive impact on student achievement,

although the magnitude of their individual impact varied over years studied. For
example, although investment in human capital had, by far, the strongest impact on
student achievement over time, the structure coefficients declined from 0.890 in 2003 to
0.648 in 2007. Over the same time period, the structure coefficients for social capital
increased from 0.158 to 0.299 although it dipped slightly in 2005. The structure
coefficients for school infrastructure were somewhat inconsistent dipping from 0.236 in
2003 to 0.049 in 2005. However, in 2007 the structure coefficient rose to approximately
the same level as in 2003. This indicated that there was nearly a one to one relationship
between increases in investment in human capital and higher student achievement.
Investment in physical capital was second with a structure coefficient of 0.236. This
coefficient is consistent with the highest coefficients found in previous research with
regard to the impact of school infrastructure on student achievement. Interestingly, in
2003, the impact of investment in social capital, with a structure coefficient of 0.158,
was not as strong as that of infrastructure expenditure. Nonetheless, instructional
support expenditures did have a positive influence on student achievement. Given the
results described above, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Spending
on school
infrastructure
317

Conclusions and implications

The purpose of this study was to determine if fiscal investment in school infrastructure
affected student achievement. School infrastructure was defined broadly to include not
only construction, renovation, and retrofitting of facilities but also maintenance. This
paper did not attempt to do justice to the rich mix of disciplines and methodologies
now evident in the study of school infrastructure and its potential impact on student
learning. Rather, the study began with an examination of the implications of an
intersection of interest between school-infrastructure-related studies and broader
studies of the relationship between educational inputs and student achievement
evidenced in one methodological approach, the production function. This study was
designed to overcome some of the widely acknowledged limitations of this approach
by couching the analysis in a theoretical framework and using a multivariate
statistical approach more suited to educational achievement. The theoretical
framework posited that investment in human, social, and physical capital enhanced
student achievement.

Independent variables
Instructional compensation
Instructional support
Infrastructure expenditure
Student poverty
R2
F-ratio (probability)
Rc
Bartlett x2 (probability)
N

2003
0.890
0.158
0.236
2 0.464
0.574
2.536 (0.002)
0.615
37.124 (0.002)
49

Structure coefficients by year

2005
0.732
0.148
0.049
2 0.643
0.558
2.294 (0.006)
0.697
33.892 (0.006)
47

2007
0.648
0.299
0.234
2 0.947
0.772
3.803 (0.000)
0.829
0.762 (0.000)
50

Table V.
Canonical estimates of
the impact of investment
of human, social, and
physical capital on
student achievement

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

318

Using national databases and the state as the unit of analysis, the ensuing analysis
supported this proposition. In total, these investments explained between
approximately one-half to two-thirds of the variations in student achievement on
fourth and eighth grade Mathematics and Reading assessments. A variable
representing student poverty was entered into the analysis as a control. Although it
served an important purpose statistically, its large, negative coefficient raises
pragmatic concerns for policymakers and practitioners with regard to barriers poverty
presents to student achievement.
Controlling for poverty, investment in human capital, defined as instructional
expenditures, was consistently the largest influence on student achievement followed
by social capital, which was defined as expenditures for instructional support.
However, the impact of investment in physical capital, or school infrastructure as
defined in the study, was also a significant contributor. To conclude, spending on
school infrastructure does matter when it comes to student achievement. However, the
results of this study indicate that the impact of these investments is maximized when
they are made in tandem. The implications of these findings for policymakers and
practitioners are straightforward. Prudent investment in education to maximize
students academic success is a balancing act including all three forms of capital,
as opposed to a zero sum game where greater investment in one form of capital comes
at the expense of another.
Note
1. Note that canonical analysis interprets structure coefficients in a manner similar to
regression coefficients in multiple regression.
References
Benson, C.S. (1978), The Economics of Public Education, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Burkhead, J. (1973), Economics against education, Teachers College Record, Vol. 75 No. 2,
pp. 193-205.
Cohn, E. and Geske, T.G. (1990), Economics of Education, 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Coleman, J.S., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, R.D. and York, R.L. (1966),
Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Corcoran, T. and Goertz, M. (1995), Instructional capacity and high performance schools,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 24, pp. 27-31.
Crampton, F.E. (2003), Unmet school infrastructure funding need as a critical educational
capacity issue: setting the context, in Crampton, F.E. and Thompson, D.C. (Eds), Saving
Americas School Infrastructure, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-26.
Crampton, F.E. (2007), Investment in School Infrastructure as a Critical Educational Capacity
Issue: A National Study, Research Monograph, Council of Educational Facilities Planners
International, Scottsdale, AZ.
Crampton, F.E., Thompson, D.C. and Hagey, J.M. (2001), Creating and sustaining school
capacity in the twenty-first century: funding a physical environment conducive to student
learning, Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 633-52.
Earthman, G.I. (1998), The impact of school building condition and student achievement and
behavior, paper presented at the European Investment Bank/Organization for Economic
Coordination and Development International Conference, Luxembourg, November.

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Earthman, G.I. and LeMasters, L.K. (1997), Can research findings help school systems obtain the
most bang from the construction buck?, paper presented at the Council of Educational
Facility Planners International Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, September.
Firestone, W.A. and Pennell, J.R. (1997), Designing state-sponsored teacher networks:
a comparison of two cases, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 237-66.
Gilley, J.W. (2000), Understanding and building capacity for change: a key to school
transformation, International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol. 9, pp. 109-19.
Hanushek, E.A. (1989), The impact of differential expenditures on school performance,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 45-51.
Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D. and Greenwald, R. (1994), Does money matter? A meta-analysis of
studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes, Educational
Researcher, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Heschong Mahone Group (1999), Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship
Between Daylighting and Human Performance, Heschong Mahone Group, Fair Oaks, CA,
August.
Holy, T.C. (1932), Introduction, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 2, November, p. 345.
Holy, T.C. (1935), Needed research in the field of school buildings and equipment, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 5, October, pp. 506-11.
Holy, T.C. (1938a), Status of research in the school plant field, Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 8, October, p. 367.
Holy, T.C. (1938b), Introduction, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 8, October, pp. 460-5.
Institute for Education Sciences (2008a), Common Core of Data, US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, available at http://nces.ed.gov/
ccd (accessed July 1, 2008).
Institute for Education Sciences (2008b), The nations report card, US Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, available at: http://
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard (accessed July 1, 2008).
Jones, J.T. and Zimmer, R.W. (2001), Examining the impact of capital on academic
achievement, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 20, December, pp. 577-88.
Levine, M.S. (1977), Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
McGuffey, C. (1982), Facilities, in Walberg, H.J. (Ed.), Improving Educational Standards and
Productivity: The Research Basis for Policy, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley,
CA, pp. 273-4.
Massell, D. (1998), State strategies for building local capacity: addressing the needs of
standards-based reform, CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-25.
Monk, D.H. (1990), Educational Finance: An Economic Approach, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, New York, NY.
National Research Council, Committee to Review and Assess the Health and Productivity
Benefits of Green Schools (2007), Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning,
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Pedhazur, E. (1997), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 3rd ed., Wadsworth Thomson
Learning, Stamford, CT.
Perie, M., Moran, R. and Lutkus, A.D. (2005), NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: three
decades of student performance in reading and mathematics, NCES 2005-464,
US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Spending
on school
infrastructure
319

JEA
47,3

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

320

Picus, L., Marion, S., Calvo, N. and Glenn, W. (2005), Understanding the relationship between
student achievement and the quality of educational facilities: evidence from Wyoming,
Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 71-95.
Plecki, M.L. and Monk, D.H. (Eds) (2003), School Finance and Teacher Quality: Exploring the
Connections, Eye on Education, Larchmont, NY.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001), Building performance: an empirical assessment of the
relationship between schools capital investment and pupil performance, Research
Report No. 242, Department for Education and Employment, London.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2003), Building better performance: an empirical assessment of the
learning and other impacts of schools capital investment, Research Report No. 407,
Department for Education and Employment, London.
Ross, Z. and Walker, B. (1999), Reading, Writing, and Risk: Air Pollution Inside Californias
Portable Classrooms, Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC.
Spillane, J.P. and Thompson, C.L. (1997), Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: the local
education agencys capacity for ambitious instructional reform, Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19, pp. 185-203.
Stinson, T.F. and Krahmer, E.F. (1969), Local school expenditures and educational quality:
a correlation analysis, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51 No. 5,
pp. 1553-6.
Thompson, D.C., Wood, R.C. and Crampton, F.E. (2008), Money and Schools, 4th ed., Eye on
Education, Larchmont, NY.
Thompson, D.C., Wood, R.C. and Honeyman, D.S. (1994), Fiscal Leadership for Schools: Concepts
and Practices, Longman, New York, NY.
US Census Bureau (2008a), Public Education Finances 2006, Governments Division,
Washington, DC.
US Census Bureau (2008b), Public elementary-secondary education finance data, available at:
www.census.gov/govs/www/school.html (accessed July 1, 2008).
Weinstein, C.S. (1979), The physical environment of the school: a review of research, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 577-610.
Sharp, W.L. (1993), School spending: is there a relationship between spending and student
achievement? A correlation study of Illinois schools, paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM.
Appendix 1. NAEP Reading performance-level descriptions
Level 350: learn from specialized reading materials
Readers at this level can extend and restructure the ideas presented in specialized and complex
texts. Examples include scientific materials, literary essays, and historical documents. Readers
are also able to understand the links between ideas, even when those links are not explicitly
stated, and to make appropriate generalizations. Performance at this level suggests the ability to
synthesize and learn from specialized reading materials.
Level 300: understand complicated information
Readers at this level can understand complicated literary and informational passages, including
material about topics they study at school. They can also analyze and integrate less familiar
material about topics they study at school as well as provide reactions to and explanations of the
text as a whole. Performance at this level suggests the ability to find, understand, summarize,
and explain relatively complicated information.

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

Level 250: interrelate ideas and make generalizations

Readers at this level use intermediate skills and strategies to search for, locate, and organize the
information they find in relatively lengthy passages and can recognize paraphrases of what they
have read. They can also make inferences and reach generalizations about main ideas and
authors purpose from passages dealing with literature, science, and social studies. Performance
at this level suggests the ability to search for specific information, interrelate ideas, and make
generalizations.
Level 200: demonstrate partially developed skills and understanding
Readers at this level can locate and identify facts from simple informational paragraphs, stories,
and news articles. In addition, they can combine ideas and make inferences based on short,
uncomplicated passages. Performance at this level suggests the ability to understand specific or
sequentially related information.
Level 150: carry out simple, discrete reading tasks
Readers at this level can follow brief written directions. They can also select words, phrases,
or sentences to describe a simple picture and can interpret simple written clues to identify a
common object. Performance at this level suggests the ability to carry out simple, discrete
reading tasks in both subject areas.
Source: Perie et al. (2005, p. 16)

Appendix 2. NAEP Mathematics performance-level descriptions

Level 350: multistep problem solving and algebra
Students at this level can apply a range of reasoning skills to solve multistep problems. They can
solve routine problems involving fractions and percents, recognize properties of basic geometric
figures, and work with exponents and square roots. They can solve a variety of two-step
problems using variables, identify equivalent algebraic expressions, and solve linear equations
and inequalities. They are developing an understanding of functions and coordinate systems.
Level 300: moderately complex procedures and reasoning
Students at this level are developing an understanding of number systems. They can compute
with decimals, simple fractions, and commonly encountered percents. They can identify
geometric figures, measure lengths and angles, and calculate areas of rectangles. These students
are also able to interpret simple inequalities, evaluate formulas, and solve simple linear
equations. They can find averages, make decisions based on information drawn from graphs,
and use logical reasoning to solve problems. They are developing the skills to operate with
signed numbers, exponents, and square roots.
Level 250: numerical operations and beginning problem solving
Students at this level have an initial understanding of the four basic operations. They are able to
apply whole number addition and subtraction skills to one-step word problems and money
situations. In multiplication, they can find the product of a two-digit and a one-digit number.
They can also compare information from graphs and charts and are developing an ability to
analyze simple logical relations.
Level 200: beginning skills and understandings
Students at this level have considerable understanding of two-digit numbers. They can add
two-digit numbers but are still developing an ability to regroup in subtraction. They know some
basic multiplication and division facts, recognize relations among coins, can read information
from charts and graphs, and use simple measurement instruments. They are developing some
reasoning skills.

Spending
on school
infrastructure
321

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

JEA
47,3

Level 150: simple arithmetic facts

Students at this level know some basic addition and subtraction facts, and most can add
two-digit numbers without regrouping. They recognize simple situations in which addition and
subtraction apply. They also are developing rudimentary classification skills.
Source: Perie et al. (2005, p. 21)

322

About the author

Faith E. Cramptons professional career has spanned public education, senior administrative
positions in state government, senior research and policy positions in national education and
legislative organizations, and graduate faculty positions in public and private research
universities. Her current position is Associate Professor in the Department of Administrative
Leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She has written extensively on school
infrastructure funding and education finance related issues. She served as principal investigator
of the first 50-state study of unmet funding needs for school infrastructure in 2001, and more
recently published an update, with support from the American Federation of Teachers. In 2003,
she published with Dr David C. Thompson the landmark book, Saving Americas School
Infrastructure, with a foreword by The Honorable Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In 2007, as
principal investigator she authored a research monograph on the results of a major study,
Investment in school infrastructure as a critical educational capacity issue: a national study,
with support from the Council of Educational Facilities Planners International. She holds a PhD
in Educational Policy and Leadership with an emphasis in public finance from The Ohio State
University. Faith E. Crampton can be contacted at: fec@uwm.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 02:18 11 November 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Aileen Strickland, Tasoulla Hadjiyanni. 2013. My School and Me-Exploring the Intersections of
Insideness and Interior Environments. Journal of Interior Design 38:4, 17-35. [CrossRef]
2. Kathryn M. Yount, John A. Maluccio, Jere R. Behrman, John Hoddinott, Alexis Murphy, Usha
Ramakrishnan. 2013. Parental Resources, Schooling Achievements, and Gender Schooling Gaps: Evidence
of Change over 25 years in Rural Guatemala. Population Research and Policy Review 32:4, 495-528.
[CrossRef]
3. Herman B. Kok, Mark P. Mobach, Onno S.W.F. Omta. 2011. The added value of facility management in
the educational environment. Journal of Facilities Management 9:4, 249-265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Webster. 2011. Measuring Predictors of Student Retention Rates. American Journal of Economics and
Business Administration 3:2, 301-311. [CrossRef]