The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

JFM
8,1

8
Received June 2009
Accepted October 2009

Relationship between school

facility conditions and the
delivery of instruction
Evidence from a national survey of school
principals
Ibrahim Duyar
Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock,
Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of school facility conditions on the
delivery of instruction from the perspective of school principals in the USA.
Design/methodology/approach By employing a multivariate correlational research design, the
paper empirically investigated whether the quality of ten facility conditions affects the delivery of
instruction after controlling three school and three student characteristics that also may affect the delivery
of instruction. The conceptual framework of this paper envisions the physical capital, along with the
human and social capitals, as one of the three main core elements for effective teaching and learning. The
conceptual framework of the study incorporated facility conditions identified by Schneider and Castaldi.
Consistent with the literature, the conditions of school facilities in the conceptual framework included
mainly cosmetic factors. The FRSS 88: Public School Principals Perceptions of Their Facilities: Fall 2005
data set of the National Center for Educational Statistics is the main data source of the study. The data set
included a nationally representative sample of 1,037 public school principals.
Findings The findings of the study indicated that six of the ten facility conditions are statiscally
and positively associated with the delivery of instruction. These six facility conditions significantly
predicted the delivery of instruction after controlling other extraneous or plausible variables. Facility
conditions accounted for 43 percent of the explained variation on the delivery of instruction with a
medium-sized effect.
Social implications Because of its service-oriented nature, the human factor has long been the
primary focus of educational research. Organisational settings, where workers function and interact,
and the contextual factors that shape organisational behaviour have attracted little attention among
educational researchers. The findings of this study provided much-needed evidence to educators,
policymakers, and legislators who are in dire need of research-based guidance on the effects of school
facilities. The paper supported the notion that educational facilities do matter and they affect the
delivery of instruction. The findings of the study may also have implications to other fields (i.e. heath,
business, and manufacturing) in regard to the effects of facility conditions on the effectiveness of
personnel at any workplace.
Originality/value This paper contributes to the field by offering a nationwide perspective of
school principals on the effects of school facilities on teaching.
Keywords Schools, Facilities, Instructions, Principals, United States of America
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Facilities Management

Vol. 8 No. 1, 2010
pp. 8-25
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1472-5967
DOI 10.1108/14725961011019058

Introduction
School buildings are perhaps the most visible expression of societys investment in
public education. Since the publication of Kozols (1992) Savage Inequalities, a series of

reports by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2000), the US General
Accounting Office (US GAO, 1995, 1996), and the National Education Association
(2000) have produced a public outcry over the poor conditions of many of our nations
school facilities. The American Society of Civil Engineers (2005) recently cited
American schools as having the lowest graded structures, gave school buildings a D
rating, and estimated that $268 billion would be needed to improve school facilities.
Whether the quality of school facility conditions affects teaching and learning is an
important policy question to educators, policymakers, and state judicial systems across
the USA. Parties who have turned to literature to find answers to this pressing question
have become frustrated with literatures inability to shed light on the issue. In fact, they
quickly realised that the literature fails to offer clear and convincing evidence regarding
the effects of school facility conditions on teaching and learning. Many studies either
lack rigor or suffer methodological limitations (Picus et al., 2005). Furthermore, existing
literature offers conflicting views regarding the effects of school facility conditions on
teaching and learning.
Because of its service-oriented nature, the human factor has long been the primary
focus of educational research. Organisational settings, where workers function and
interact, and the contextual factors that shape organisational behaviour have attracted
little attention among educational researchers. The quality and condition of educational
facilities is one of the most neglected organisational factors in educational research.
The lack of educational research on educational facilities has become particularly
evident when many state supreme courts started declaring state public education
systems unconstitutional due to the ways states fund their school construction
programs and the adequacy of school facilities across the states (Crampton et al., 2004).
The lawsuits have primarily reflected the problem that school districts with
low-property values and consequently low-bonding ability have been unable to
construct adequate schools.
Policymakers and educators could not find appropriate guidance and convincing
evidence on the adequate level of school facilities or on the effects of facility conditions
on delivery of instruction and/or student performance. This study addressed the
current need of educators and policymakers by providing evidence on the effects of
school facility conditions on the delivery of instruction as perceived by a nationally
representative sample of public school principals.
Status of public school facilities
To emphasise the significance and scale of school facilities, GAO has issued eight
reports (three in 1995, three in 1996, one in 1997, and one in March of 2000). In US GAO
(1995), the GAO concluded that about two-thirds of Americas school buildings were in
adequate condition, with most needing preventative or corrective repair. The remaining
one-third of schools, however, was in need of extensive repair or replacement of
buildings. Over half of Americas schools reported one major building feature in need of
repair or replacement. In addition, about half reported at least one unsatisfactory
environmental condition in their schools, such as poor ventilation or heating, lighting
problems, or poor physical security. Although school construction had grown
significantly, US GAO (2000) estimated that 14 million students attend schools
considered below standard or dangerous and needing extensive structural renovations
or replacement of major building features such as air or lighting systems.

School facility
conditions

JFM
8,1

10

Similarly, a 1999 survey of public schools conducted by the US Department of

Education showed that about one-quarter of schools had at least one on-site building in
less-than-adequate condition, one-half had at least one building feature in
less-than-adequate condition, and about 40 percent had at least one unsatisfactory
environmental condition such as lighting, heating, acoustics, or physical security
(Lewis et al., 2000). Furthermore, 20 percent of schools reported the physical security of
their school buildings as unsatisfactory in 1999.
Together, the GAO and Department of Education surveys documented the need to
take a closer look at the conditions of our nations schools. These studies showed that
many schools across the country do not have adequate conditions for promoting the
safety and security necessary for a positive educational experience.
Lack of a coherent understanding on the effects of school facilities
A growing issue in school finance adequacy relates to the condition of school facilities
and the role that the condition of those facilities plays in the delivery of instruction and
student performance. However, a comprehensive investigation of the literature
revealed that there are few published studies on whether or not there is a relationship
between conditions of facilities and teaching and learning. In fact, the literature not
only suffers scarce rigorous studies but it also lacks a consensus about the role of the
facility conditions. For instance, a group of researchers who are active in the field
(Picus et al., 2005, pp. 71-2) concluded [. . .] there is essentially no relationship between
the quality of school facilities and student performance when other factors known to
impact student performance are accounted for. The following lines review the
literature on the effects of school facilities:
Belonging to a place and feeling a part of it gives many people a positive sensation of
security, yet for others it may be oppressive and restrictive. Whether we know places with a
deep affection or merely as stopping points in our passage through the world, they are set
apart in time and space because they have distinctive meanings for us (Seamon and
Mugerauer, 1985).

Todays school buildings function to shelter and support a variety of learning

experiences for students and a variety of work experiences for administrators, teachers,
and support staff (Castaldi, 1994). Most, if not all, teaching takes place in a specific
physical location (usually a school building) and the quality of that location can affect
the ability of teachers to teach, teacher morale, and the very health and safety of
teachers (Buckley et al., 2004a). It is common sense that decent, healthy, safe and secure
school facilities are essential to successful educational programs (Kowalski, 2002;
Planty and DeVoe, 2005).
Lowe (1990) reported that teachers cited the availability and quality of classroom
equipment and furnishings, as well as climate control and acoustics, as the most
important factors affecting their teaching. Corcoran et al. (1988) confirmed these
findings in a research study that found working conditions to be one of the significant
contributing factors to teacher absenteeism, reduced levels of effort and effectiveness
in the classroom, low morale, and reduced job satisfaction. Stevenson (2001) found that
teachers are attracted to schools with modern learning environments rather than
run-down, overcrowded ones.
Studies also have suggested that cosmetic facility conditions have a greater effect
on student achievement than structural conditions, for which the reported effect seems

to range from weak to none at all (Cash, 1993, 2009; Earthman and Westbrook, 1995).
The authors of these studies, however, failed to discuss the implications of these
findings, which appear to support routine maintenance efforts rather than
the construction of new, state-of-the-art schools. Their findings are in line with the
underlying theory because, although students would be expected to notice cosmetic
features, they would less likely be affected by structural problems on a day-to-day level
(Picus et al., 2005). This is not to say that structural problems are unimportant. Whether
or not structural factors have any influence on student achievement, it is important to
maintain buildings for safety and financial reasons.
In addition to cosmetic and structural factors, some studies pointed out the
significance of school facility maintenance in creating a conducive teaching and
learning environment (Castaldi, 1994; Planty and DeVoe, 2005; Szuba and Young, 2003).
However, these studies did not offer empirical evidence on the extent to which school
maintenance affects teaching and learning. One could also argue that maintenance of
school facilities can be considered a cosmetic factor.
Although a growing body of research connects the quality of facility conditions to
educational outcomes, most of it focuses on a certain aspect of a facility while
overlooking the effects of the overall facility. Specific building conditions or features
shown to influence educational outcomes in these studies include building age
(Duran-Narucki, 2008; ONeill, 2000), maintenance (Lavy and Bilbo, 2009), renovation
(Uline and Tschannen-Moran, 2008), acoustics and noise (Hygge et al., 2002; Maxwell
and Evans, 2000), indoor air quality (Earthman, 2004), daylight (Kuller and Lindsten,
1992), and design (Tanner and Lackney, 2006).
A more inclusive study which examined the overall effects of a group of facility
conditions (Buckley et al., 2004a) found statistically significant effects of facility
conditions on student achievement. Similarly, utilising data from Milwaukee Public
Schools facility condition and standardised student performance assessments of
1996-1998, Lewis (2001) studied the impact of a variety of school conditions on student
test scores while controlling for differences in individual ability, race and ethnicity,
attendance, truancy and suspension rates, mobility, and percent of students eligible for
free or reduced-price lunches. He found that student performance on standardised tests
was significantly related to facility conditions in 11 of the 36 estimates. School facility
conditions explained up to 16 percent of the variation in student scores in 1996. In fact,
facility conditions were found to be a stronger predictor of academic achievement than
many family background factors and socio-economic conditions. Morgan concluded
that a schools facility conditions might affect student performance more readily than
many social and economic variables. Even though the methodological rigor of the
studies differed significantly, the majority of correlation studies showed a strong,
positive relationship between overall building conditions and student achievement. As
indicated by Earthman (2002) researchers have repeatedly found a difference of
between 5 and 17 percentile points difference between achievement of students in poor
buildings and those students in standard buildings, when the socioeconomic status of
students is controlled.
After a comprehensive review of the literature, Schneider (2002) identified six main
facility conditions that affect academic outcomes the most. These conditions include
both structural and cosmetic factors. They are indoor air quality, ventilation and

School facility
conditions

11

JFM
8,1

12

thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, building age and quality, and school and
class sizes.
Many researchers acknowledged that facilities may have very small potential
impact on student learning but argued that they are one of the few variables that affect
student learning over which school officials have complete control (Buckley et al.,
2004b; Kowalski, 2002). Therefore, they suggest policymakers and school officials
make every effort to ensure facility quality. Picus et al. (2005), however, argues that it is
extremely costly to build, maintain, and renovate facilities, so it may be more cost
effective to use that money elsewhere. The lack of consensus in the research
community leaves practicing educators, policy makers, and the judicial system with no
guidance in making their decisions.
Before discussing the cost-effectiveness of investments in improving the quality of
school facilities, literature should establish a coherent understanding and offer
guidance on the effects of school facility conditions on the delivery of instruction and
learning. The current study addresses this need by offering evidence based on a survey
of a national representative sample of principals.
Conceptual framework
This study envisions the school facilities as the physical capital of teaching and
learning systems. The physical capital completes the human and social capitals. The
teaching and learning systems can be effective only when these three capitals are at the
same level. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) incorporated facility conditions
identified by Schneider (2002) and Castaldi (1994). Consistent with the literature, the
conditions of school facilities in the conceptual framework include mainly cosmetic
factors. Cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms was also added to capture
the effect of facility maintenance as suggested by Castaldi (1994). Facility conditions
included in the FRSS 88: Public School Principals Perceptions of Their Facilities: Fall
2005 survey correspond a great deal with the conditions listed by Schneider.
Research design and methodology
Research design
This descriptive study employed a multivariate correlational research design to
examine the relationship between the quality of facility conditions and the delivery of
instruction. A multivariate correlational study describes the direction and magnitude
of relationships between two variables and takes into account the influence of
additional factors (Lauer, 2006). Even though school principals were the participants,
schools, not the principals, were the unit of analysis.
The independent variables included ten facility conditions that were identified by
Schneider. School principals satisfaction with each facility condition and satisfaction
with all of the conditions combined on a four-point scale determined the perceived
quality of the existing school facilities. The satisfaction/quality scale ranged from 1,
very satisfactory to 4, very unsatisfactory. This variable was reverse coded to
investigate whether there is a positive relationship between facility conditions and the
delivery of instruction. The domain that represented ten facility conditions was
considered as the measure of the quality of school facilities. The dependent variable
was the combined score of perceived interference of facility conditions on the delivery
of instruction. Interference with the ability of the school to deliver instruction was also

Independent variables

Control variables

Dependent variable

Maintenance of
restrooms

School facility
conditions

Artificial light
Size

13

Natural light
Locale
Heating
Air conditioning

NAEP
region
Instructional
delivery

Ventilation

Poverty

Indoor air quality

Minority
Acoustics and noise
reduction
Ceilings, walls, floor

Instructional
level

Size and configuration

measured with a four-point scale where 1 was not at all and 4 was major extent.
The control variables (covariates or extraneous variables) included instructional level,
school size, and locale (city, suburb, and urban), poverty (free/reduced lunch), and
minority student population. A positive association between the facility conditions and
the delivery of instruction was hypothesised. It was hypothesised that the increase in
the quality of school facility conditions might have a positive effect on the level of
delivery of instruction as perceived by school principals. Owing to the conflicting
views on the effect of facility conditions in the literature, the study model did not
impose an a-priori assumption on the relative effect of independent variables and
covariates on the delivery of instruction. Descriptive and multivariate statistics were
conducted to test the research hypothesis.
Data source and procedures
The main data source of this study was the FRSS 88: Public School Principals
Perceptions of Their Facilities: Fall 2005 data set of the Fast Response Survey System
(FRSS). The full questionnaire of the data set was included in Appendix. Items that
served the purpose of this study were selected and used for the current study. The FRSS
was established in 1975 by the NCES and the US Department of Education to collect
issue-oriented data within a relatively short-time frame. The FRSS previously

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework:
effects of facility
conditions on the delivery
of instruction

JFM
8,1

14

conducted a survey on school facilities in 1999 (FRSS 73: Condition of Americas Public
School Facilities: 1999). The participants included were the main difference between the
previous 1999 and the current 2005 surveys. While the participants of the 2005 survey
were school principals, they were the district personnel (often a facilities coordinator) in
the previous 1999 survey.
The sample consisted of 1,205 regular public elementary and secondary/combined
schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It was selected from the 2002-2003
NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe file, which was the most
current file available at the time of selection. The sampling frame included about
84,000 regular schools, of which about 63,000 were elementary schools, and about
21,000 were secondary/combined schools. Excluded from the sampling frame were the
15 percent of CCD schools with a large prekindergarten or kindergarten grade and
ungraded schools, along with special education, vocational, and alternative/other
schools, schools outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and schools with
zero or missing enrolment. The public school sampling frame was stratified by
instructional level (elementary and secondary/combined), enrolment size (less than 300,
300-499, 500-599, 600-749 and 750 or more for elementary schools: less than 300,
300-499, 500-999, 1,000-1,499 and 1,500 or more for secondary/combined schools), and
percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (less than 35, 35-49, 50-74 and 75 percent
or more). Schools in the frame were then sorted by type of locale (city, urban fringe,
town, and rural) and region (Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West) to induce
additional implicit stratification.
Questionnaires and cover letters for the study were mailed to the principal of each
sampled school in mid-September of 2005. Telephone follow-up for survey
non-responsiveness and data clarification were initiated in early October of 2005 and
completed in late January of 2006. Of the 1,205 schools in the sample, 47 were found to
be ineligible for the survey, primarily because they were closed or merged. This left a
total of 1,158 eligible schools in the sample. Completed questionnaires were received
from 1,045 schools, or 90 percent of the eligible schools. The weighted response rate was
91 percent. The weighted number of eligible institutions in the survey represents the
estimated universe of regular elementary and secondary/combined schools in the
50 states and the District of Columbia (Planty and DeVoe, 2005). Final sample for the
current study included schools that have classrooms only in permanent school
buildings (n 1,037). Schools with classrooms in portable buildings (n 369) were
excluded from the study to prevent possible plausible effects of portable buildings
on the delivery of instruction. Table I displays the demographic characteristics of the
sample.
The stratified nature of the sampling presented both sampling and nonsampling
errors. To minimise sampling and non-sampling errors and thus to ensure data
reliability, certain procedures were employed. Standard errors were computed using a
technique known as jack-knife replication to generate accurate standard errors for the
estimates. Jack-knife replication involves constructing a number of subsamples
(replicates) from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for each
replicate. To minimise the potential for non-sampling error, this study used a variety of
procedures, including a pre-test of the questionnaire with principals of elementary and
secondary schools. The pre-test provided the opportunity to check for consistency of
interpretation of questions and definitions and to eliminate ambiguous items.

Respondent sample
(unweighted)
Number
%
School characteristic
All public schools
1,045
Schools with permanent building
648
School with portable building
397
Instructional level
Elementary
530
Secondary/combined
515
Enrolment size
Less than 350
256
350-699
349
700 or more
440
Locale
City
267
Urban fringe/large town
367
Small town/rural
411
Region
Northeast
183
Southeast
233
Central
282
West
347
Percent minority enrolment
Less than 6
237
6-20
242
21-49
215
50 or more
330
Percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Less than 35 percent
427
35 to 49 percent
175
50 to 74 percent
216
75 percent or more
227

National estimate
(weighted)
Number
%

100
62
38

80,910

51
49

61,590
19,320

76
24

25
33
42

27,300
32,710
20,900

34
40
26

26
35
39

19,510
27,710
33,690

24
34
42

18
22
27
33

14,760
17,250
23,010
25,890

18
21
28
32

23
23
21
32

19,540
20,440
15,760
22,900

24
25
19
28

41
17
21
22

32,880
13,400
18,620
16,010

41
17
23
20

School facility
conditions

100

15

Notes: Percent minority enrolment was not available for 21 schools; those schools were included in
the totals and in the analyses by other school characteristics; detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding or missing data
Source: US Department of Education (2005)

The questionnaire and instructions were also extensively reviewed by NCES. In

addition, manual and machine editing of the questionnaire responses were conducted
to check the data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing or inconsistent
items were re-contacted by telephone to resolve problems. Data were keyed with 100
percent verification for surveys received by mail, fax, or telephone (Planty and DeVoe,
2005).
Further reliability and validity tests were administered for the items selected for the
current study. Bivariate correlation coefficients for the independent variables
(satisfaction of particular facility conditions) were all positive and moderate to high
(ranging between r 0.210 and 0.794). Even though there were several weak bivariate
correlations (less than 0.400) between facility conditions, all corrected item correlations

Table I.
Number and percent of
responding public
schools in the study
sample, and estimated
number and percent of
public schools the sample
represents, by school
characteristics: 2005

JFM
8,1

were at least moderate, ranging from 0.430 to 0.761. Cronbachs alfa was 0.866,
indicating the domain created with ten items truly explained the facility conditions
(Leech et al., 2005). Similarly, none of the item deletions increased the Cronbachs alfa
higher than 0.880, but caused only a minimal increase of 0.014, which kept all ten items
in the facility condition domain. This finding further suggested that the nine facility
conditions hang together in one domain (Lauer, 2006).

16
Data analysis
To assess how the quality of school facility conditions predicts the level of interference
with the delivery of instruction, a simultaneous regression analysis was conducted.
The simultaneous regression analysis is the best multivariate method when the
researcher has no prior ideas about which variables will create the best prediction
equation and has a reasonably small set of predictors (Leech et al., 2005; Stevens, 2009).
In other words, the study assumed that all ten facility conditions and five covariates
are important predictors. The study aimed to identify the highest possible multiple
correlation of these variables with the delivery of instruction.
Assumptions for linearity, normality, and error terms were tested. Examination of
residual scatterplot indicated that errors are normally distributed, the variances of the
residuals are constant, and the residual is relatively uncorrelated with the linear
combination of predictors. However, examination of the scatterplot matrix, which
shows whether predictors (independent variables and covariates) are linearly related to
the dependent variable, indicated that none of the covariates are linearly related to the
delivery of instruction. Thus, the linearity assumption was violated for all covariates.
Furthermore, examination of bivariate correlation coefficients indicated that some of
the predictors (both independent and covariate) were significantly correlated with each
other, indicating multicollinarity (overlap) between predictors. One way to handle
multicollinarity is to combine variables that are highly related, if it makes conceptual
sense. Another way is to omit variables with low-tolerance scores. This study employed
both techniques to satisfy the assumptions. The criteria for variable omission was
1 2 R 2 0.569. For instance, the satisfaction with ventilation (Tolerance 0.309) and
satisfaction with indoor air quality (Tolerance 0.323), which had the lowest tolerance
scores, were combined in a single variable because of their conceptual similarities. The
new variable was entitled Satisfaction with indoor air quality. Elimination of ventilation
did not significantly violate the conceptual integrity of the study, as ventilation was
mainly used for improving air quality. Because of significant correlations with other
independent variables, and a conceptual similarity with air conditioning and heating,
heating was eliminated from the model. The new variable was titled as Satisfaction with
air conditioning. Although one might have suspicions about conceptual overlaps
between satisfaction with artificial light and natural light items, the data did not
support such contention between these two facility conditions. The correlation
coefficient between these two facility conditions was moderately low (0.441) and each
variable had relatively high-tolerance values.
Similarly, conceptually related and significantly correlated covariates were either
combined or omitted from the study. For instance, instructional level was eliminated
because of its significant correlation with school size. Similarly, the NAEP region was
eliminated from the model because of its significant correlation with locale. Lastly,
minority percentage was eliminated because it significantly correlated with other

covariates and had a low-tolerance score (0.501). The final model included eight facility
conditions (independent variables) and three control variables.
Findings
This study examined whether there was any association between the quality of facility
conditions and the delivery of instruction as perceived by the public school principals.
A positive association between the quality of facility conditions and the delivery
of instruction was hypothesised. It was hypothesised that the increase in the quality of
school facility conditions might have a positive effect on the level of delivery of
instruction as perceived by school principals. Descriptive and multivariate statistics
were used to test the research hypothesis for schools with classrooms only in
permanent facilities.
The descriptive statistics for all of the variables used in this study are displayed in
Table II. The arithmetic average of eight facility conditions ranged from 1.68 to 1.96 on
a four-point scale (n 1,037; SD 0.636-1.080). The averages of less than the
mid-point of 2.0 on a four-point scale indicated a moderately low satisfaction with all
facility conditions by the principals. The low-standard deviations indicated that the
group agreed on their view of satisfaction with the facility conditions. The artificial
lighting (M 1.68, SD 0.636) in school facilities was the least satisfied while
acoustics (M 1.96, SD 0.651) was the most satisfied facility condition.
All eight-facility conditions were positively and significantly correlated with each
other and with the dependent variable, providing an initial support to the study
hypothesis. The Pearsons correlation coefficients for facility conditions ranged from
r 0.210 to 0.569. The correlation coefficients of control variables were noticeably low,
with differing signs. Only poverty measured by the percentage of students eligible for
free and reduced lunch was significantly correlated with the delivery of instruction
(r 0.071, p 0.011) in seven of the eight facility conditions.
One must apply caution in interpreting bivariate correlational analyses. Bivariate
correlations offer only a description of the direction and magnitude of the relations
between two variables (Lauer, 2006). They do not take into account the influence of
other plausible variables that may also have an effect on the dependent variable. To
perform a more in-depth analysis of the association between facility conditions and the
delivery of instruction, a multiple regression analysis was conducted.
Multiple regression is a correlational statistical technique that permits the
assessment of the degree of relationship between two variables while factoring out the
influence of one or more additional variables. More specifically, a simultaneous
multiple regression was conducted to determine the best linear combination of seven
facility conditions and three control variables for predicting delivery of instruction. As
the title indicates, the simultaneous regression considers all variables at the same time,
and it prevents the effect of sequential entrance of each variable in the analysis. It is the
best method to use if the researcher has no prior ideas about which variables will create
the best prediction equation and has a reasonably small set of predictors (Leech et al.,
2005).
The simultaneous multiple regression model including a combination of facility
conditions and control variables significantly predicted the delivery of instruction
F(11,1025) 71.533, p , 0.000. Six of the eight facility conditions significantly
contributed to the prediction of the level of delivery of instruction. None of three control

School facility
conditions

17

Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
the facility conditions,
control variables, and
delivery of instruction

0.019
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.797
0.794
1.19
0.636
0.793
1.08
0.659
0.651

4.02

SD

2 0.152 * *
2 0.064
0.021
0.265 * *
0.382 * *
0.296 * *
0.560 * *
0.480 * *

0.441 * *
0.210 * *
0.389 * *
0.516 * *
0.519 * *

0.071 *

2 0.285 * *
2 0.180
0.117 * *

2 0.035

0.307 * *

0.517 * *

0.267 * *

0.300 * *

0.515 * *

2 0.056 *
0.027
0.055 *

0.376 * *

0.383 * *

0.266 * *

0.363 * *

0.417 * *

2 0.021 * *
2 0.037
0.056 *

0.364 * *

0.190 * *

0.349 * *

0.520 * *

0.070
0.015
0.084 * *

0.409 * *

0.254 * *

0.436 * *

2 0.048
2 0.033
0.119 * *

0.507 * *

0.318 * *

2 0.031
2 0.023
0.079 * *

0.454 * *

2 0.046
2 0.081
0.091 * *

0.508 * *

18

Dependent variable
Delivery of
instruction
10.01
Control variables
1. Enrolment
2.18
2. School locale
2.14
3. Poverty
2.23
Independent variables
4. Satisfaction with
artificial lighting
1.68
5. Satisfaction with
natural lighting
1.80
6. Satisfaction with
air conditioning
1.73
7. Satisfaction with
indoor air quality 1.93
8. Satisfaction with
acoustics or noise
control
1.96

Variable

0.078 * *

0.337 * *

11

(continued)

0.007
2 0.069 * *

0.521 * *

10

JFM
8,1

0.735

0.677

0.662

1.90

1.73

SD

1.90

1.00

1.00

1.00

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; n 1,037

9. Satisfaction with
physical
condition of
ceilings, floors,
walls, windows,
doors
10. Satisfaction with
size or
configuration of
classrooms
11. Satisfaction with
cleanliness or
maintenance of
student
restrooms

Variable

0.380 * *

0.569 * *

0.436 * *

10

11

School facility
conditions

19

Table II.

JFM
8,1

20

variables was statistically significant in the model. The b and standardised b weights,
presented in Table III, suggest that size or configuration of classrooms (b 0.215)
contributed most to predicting the level of delivery of instruction. This means that the
quality of delivery of instruction will increase 0.22 for every one-unit change in the
quality of size or configuration of classrooms. This finding supports the literature on
the relative importance of cosmetic facility conditions and facility aspects that are more
obvious to teachers and students, compared with structural facility conditions. Air
conditioning (b 0.202), physical condition of ceilings, floors, walls, windows, and
doors (b 0.170), indoor air quality (b 0.135), natural lighting (b 0.110), and
acoustics or noise control (b 0.108) also significantly contributed in predicting
delivery of the instruction in schools with permanent buildings. The adjusted R 2-value
was 0.434. This indicates that 43 percent of the variance in the level of instruction was
explained by the model. According to Cohen (1988), this is a medium-sized effect.
Conclusions, implications, and limitations
Prior research has been limited by geographical coverage. This study contributed to
the field by offering nationwide perspective of school principals on the effects of school
facilities on teaching. It is important to discover whether the quality of school facilities
matters. If it does, it is also important to discover what aspects of facility conditions in
particular are important in the delivery of instruction. The findings of this study
provided much-needed evidence to educators, policymakers, and legislators who are in
dire need of research-based guidance on the effects of school facilities. The findings of
this study are critically important given the recent supreme court decisions in many
states concerning the need to infuse more money into capital construction budgets.
Here, are some of the general findings and their implications to educational research,
policymaking, and practice. The study confirmed the earlier literature on poor and

Variable

Table III.
Simultaneous multiple
regression analysis
summary for facility
conditions and control
variables in predicting
the delivery of instruction

Control variables
1. Enrolment
2. School locale
3. Poverty
Independent variables
4. Satisfaction with artificial lighting
5. Satisfaction with natural lighting
6. Satisfaction with air conditioning
7. Satisfaction with indoor air quality
8. Satisfaction with acoustics or noise control
9. Satisfaction with physical condition of ceilings,
floors, walls, windows, doors
10. Satisfaction with size or configuration of
classrooms
11. Satisfaction with cleanliness and maintenance
of student restrooms
Constant

SEB

0.093
0.093
0.025

0.128
0.129
0.083

0.018
0.000
0.007

2 0.174
0.547
0.751
0.661

0.192
0.137
0.096
0.887
0.184

20.028
0.108 * *
0.202 * *
0.201
0.107 * *

0.872

0.183

0.160 * *

1.275

0.184

0.215 * *

0.271
0.400

0.164
0.647

Notes: p , 0.000; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; n 1,037; R 2 0.43; F(10,1026) 78.533

0.129 * *

0.045

below satisfactory facility conditions across the USA. The low-mean satisfaction scores
(ranging between 1.68 and 1.96 on a four-point scale) confirmed the existence of poor
quality for all eight facility conditions analysed in the current study. Artificial lighting,
air conditioning, and cleanliness and maintenance of student restrooms were
particularly unsatisfactory. Regression analysis supported the descriptive findings.
While none of the control variables significantly contributed to the quality of
instructional delivery, six of eight facility conditions significantly contributed, all with
positive signs.
There are several main implications in these findings. First, the study provided
evidence regarding the effects of facility conditions on the delivery of instruction in
public schools. This finding supports the body of literature addressing the importance
of school facilities in the education of our children. Second, the study also supports the
literature on the comparative importance of cosmetic facility conditions over structural
facility conditions. This is understandable as cosmetic aspects of facilities are more
obvious to teachers and students. Relatively, lower costs of cosmetic factors (compared
to structural conditions) give field level decision and policy makers more leverage in
increasing the quality of these conditions. Lastly, the study supported several
empirical studies indicating that facility conditions are relatively more influential than
some school or student attributes when it comes to the delivery of instruction. Even
though poverty was significantly correlated with the quality of instruction on the
bivariate analyses (r 0.071, p , 0.000), its effect on the delivery of instruction was
not significant when other factors were held constant in the regression analysis
(t 0.296, p 0.768). These findings require additional attention from policymakers
and field level educators when they allocate resources among various needs.
Despite its unique contribution to the field, the findings of this study must be
considered along with its limitations. The measure of facility quality and its impact on
the delivery of instruction were both based on self-reported perceptions of the building
principals. Therefore, the measure of this study might possess a high degree of
subjectivity. Additionally, the NCES survey used in this study included only school
principals. The study findings do not reflect the opinion of teachers, who may have
better insight into whether or not the school facilities affect the delivery of the
instruction. Similarly, as discussed in the conceptual framework, this study was
mainly limited to the cosmetic facility conditions and the maintenance of facilities.
Structural facility conditions were not included in the study.
Further research
The significant and relatively higher effects of facility conditions compared to the
effects of poverty (percent of free and reduced lunch students) are particularly
intriguing for the educational research community. However, the mentioned effects
identified in this study and similar previous studies in the literature have been based
on the associations between proxies. Further research employing rigorous
methodologies is needed to study the theory of causation. What is lacking in the
literature is the theoretical basis on which to claim that facilities affect teaching and
student performance. For instance, this and earlier studies have identified the
relationships between some facilities and teaching and student performance. However,
current literature falls short in explaining why the relative maintenance of restrooms
or ventilation would be associated with differences in teaching and learning.

School facility
conditions

21

JFM
8,1

22

Future studies in school facilities should answer this crucial question to be able to
establish consensus, and thus, establish legitimacy as a research field that guides
policy and practice. Future rigorous studies may help identifying the:
.
mediating factors (constructs) that may account for the variation on teaching and
learning; and
.
direct and indirect relationships among the variables.
The dynamics among the related variables within a whole picture is yet to be drawn in
contextual factors, facilities in particular. How do they affect educational outcome
variables, such as student behaviour management, student achievement, faculty
satisfaction, or faculty commitment?
Another methodological improvement in future studies would be the use of primary
data and the triangulation of data through the use of multiple data gathering
instruments. The use of panel and secondary data has been increasingly criticised. Even
though these claims are not substantiated with the empirical findings, diversifying the
data sources may inherently increase the validity of findings of future research.
Including individuals who have background in facilities would particularly address one
of the most debated issues. In this debate, one perspective sees school and district
administrators as unqualified to make decisions concerning facilities because their
backgrounds lack appropriate technical knowledge and skills on facilities. The contrary
view points out the existing problem of school facilities that have failed to respond to the
schools and school districts present and future needs. According to a US Department of
Education (2000) study, the divisions among those responsible for constructing,
renovating, and modernising American public schools often have resulted in poorly
conceived capital improvement projects. Diversifying data sources may certainly
establish consensus among differing views, thus increasing the validity of the findings.
In addition to rigorous methodology, the conceptual framework of future research
should be inclusive, incorporating the physical, human, and social capital variables.
Within such an inclusive conceptual framework, perhaps the cosmetic factors (physical
capital), implicate teacher satisfaction (social capital), teacher satisfaction implicates
teacher performance (human capital), and teacher performance implicates student
performance (human capital).
The participants of this study were school principals. As instructional leaders,
school principals are expected to be well positioned to make decisions in the planning,
management, and assessment of their school facilities. The duties of principals in
schools and superintendents in school districts extend beyond the obvious functions of
planning a new school, to include other tasks such as political leadership, economic
planning, and sound management. The Educational Leadership Standards: ISLLC
2008 that guides the practicing school administrator certification programs throughout
the nation calls for effective practice of such duties (The Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2008). Nevertheless, the failing schools throughout the USA or in any other
country in the world are blunt proof that the certification may not secure principal
qualifications for effective practices. This study controlled school and student
attributes to study relationships between the facility conditions and the delivery of
instruction (see conceptual framework). Future research may also control principal or
participant attributes in addition to school and student attributes. Similarly, future

research may include teachers as they are primarily responsible for delivering the
instruction.
The dependent variable in the study was the delivery of instruction. Future research
may include student performance as the ultimate dependent variable. The
effectiveness of teaching may be studied as one of the mediating factors in future
research.
The findings of this study may transpire further research focusing on higher
education institutions. Similarly, effects of facility conditions on organisational
effectiveness may be studied at other service and/or manufacturing organisations in
both public and private sectors.
References
(The) American Society of Civil Engineers (2005), Report Card for Americas Infrastructure, The
American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, DC, available at: www.asce.org/
reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id31
Buckley, J., Schneider, M. and Shang, Y. (2004a), LAUSD School Facilities and Academic
Performance, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC,
available at: www.edfacilities.org/pubs/index.cfm (accessed July 23, 2008).
Buckley, J., Schneider, M. and Shang, Y. (2004b), The Effects of School Quality on Teacher
Retention in Urban School Districts, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington,
DC, available at: www.edfacilities.org/pubs/index.cfm
Cash, C. (1993), A study of the relationship between school building condition and student
achievement and behavior, doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Cash, C. (2009), Improving Student Achievement and School Facilities in a Time of Limited
Funding, Connexions Content Commons, National Council of Professors of Educational
Administration, Washington, DC, available at: http://cnx.org/content/m23100/latest
Castaldi, B (1994), Educational Facilities: Planning, Modernization, and Management, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J. and White, J. L. (1988), Working in Urban Schools, Institute for
Educational Leadership, Washington, DC.
(The) Council of Chief State School Officers (2008), Educational Leadership Policy Standards:
2008, The Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, available at: www.
ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID365
Crampton, F.E., Thompson, D.C. and Vesely, R.S. (2004), The forgotten side of school finance
equity: the role of infrastructure funding in student success, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 88
No. 640, pp. 29-52.
Duran-Narucki, V. (2008), School building condition, school attendance, and academic
achievement in New York City public schools: a mediation model, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 278-86.
Earthman, G. and Westbrook, K. (1995), Federal regulations in planning educational facilities,
Unit R in Guide for Planning Educational Facilities, Council of Educational Facility
Planners International, Scottsdale, AZ.
Earthman, G.I. (2002), School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement, UCLAs
Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access, Los Angeles, CA.

School facility
conditions

23

JFM
8,1

24

Earthman, G.I. (2004), Prioritization of 31 Criteria for School Building Adequacy, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland, Maryland, MA.
Hygge, S., Evans, G.W. and Bullinger, M. (2002), A prospective study of some effects of aircraft
noise on cognitive performance in school children, Psychological Science, Vol. 74, pp. 61-80.
Kowalski, T.J. (2002), Planning and Managing School Facilities, 2nd ed., Greenwood Publishing
Group, Westport, CT.
Kozol, J. (1992), Savage Inequalities: Children in Americas Schools, Harper Perennial,
New York, NY.
Kuller, R. and Lindsten, C. (1992), Health and behavior of children in classrooms with and
without windows, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 305-17.
Lauer, P. A. (2006), An Education Research Primer: How to Understand, Evaluate and Use It,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lavy, S.B. and Bilbo, D.L. (2009), Facilities maintenance management practices in large public
schools Texas, The Journal of Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C. and Morgan, G.A. (2005), SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., Cronen, S. and Kaplan, J. (2000), Condition of
Americas Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES, 2000-032, US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Lewis, M. (2001), Facility Conditions and Student Test Performance in the Milwaukee Public
Schools, Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Scottsdale, AZ, available
at: www.cefpi.org/issuetraks.html
Lowe, J.M. (1990), The interface between educational facilities and learning climate, doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Maxwell, L.E. and Evans, G.W. (2000), The effects of noise on pre-school childrens pre-reading
skills, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 90-7.
National Education Association (2000), Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost?, National
Education Association, Washington, DC.
NCES (2000), Condition of Americas Public School Facilities: 1999, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
ONeill, D. (2000), The impact of school facilities on student achievement, behaviour, attendance,
and teacher turnover rate at selected Texas middle schools in Region XIII ESC, doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Picus, L.O., Marion, S.F., Calvo, N. and Glenn, W.J. (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.
Planty, M. and DeVoe, J.F. (2005), An Examination of the Conditions of School Facilities Attended
by 10th-Grade Students in 2002, US Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Schneider, M. (2002), Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities, Washington, DC, available at: www.edfacilities.org/pubs/index.cfm
(accessed July 25, 2008).
Seamon, D. and Mugerauer, R. (1985), Dwelling, Place and Environment: Towards a
Phenomenology of Person and World, Martinus Nyhoff, Boston, MA.
Stevens, J.P. (2009), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 5th ed., Routledge,
New York, NY.

Stevenson, K. (2001), School physical environment and structure: their relationship to student
outcomes, School Business Affairs, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 40-2.
Szuba, T. and Young, R. (2003), Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities, US Department
of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Tanner, C.K. and Lackney, J.A. (2006), The physical environment and student achievement in
elementary schools, in Tanner, C.K. and Lackney, J.A. (Eds), Educational Facilities
Planning: Leadership, Architecture, and Management, Pearson Education, Boston, MA,
pp. 266-83.
Uline, C. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008), The walls speak: the interplay of quality facilities,
school climate, and student achievement, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 55-73.
US Department of Education (2000), Schools as Centers of Community: A Citizens Guide for
Planning and Design, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
US Department of Education (2005), FRSS 88: Public School Principals Perceptions of Their
Facilities: Fall 2005, Fast Response Survey System, US Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
US GAO (1995), School Facilities: Condition of Americas Schools, report to Congressional
Requestors No. GAO/HEHS-95-61, US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
US GAO (1996), School Facilities: Americas Schools Report Differing Conditions, report to
Congressional Requestors No. GAO/HEHS-96-103, US General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC.
US GAO (2000), Construction Expenditures Have Grown Significantly in Recent Years, report to
Congressional Requestors No. GAO/HEHS-00-41, US General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC.
Further reading
Bauer, A.L. (2006), An Education Research Primer: How to Understand, Evaluate, and Use It,
Jossey-Boss, San Francisco, CA.
Chaney, B. and Lewis, L. (2007), Public School Principals Report on Their School Facilities: Fall
2005, NCES 2007-007, US Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Washington, DC.
Lyons, J.B. (2001), Do school facilities really impact a childs education?, CEFPI Brief, Issue
Track. No. 1-6.
Pyrczak, R. and Bruce, R. (2005), Writing Empirical Research Reports: A Basic Guide for Students
of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 5th ed., Pyrczak, Glendale, CA.
Corresponding author
Ibrahim Duyar can be contacted at: ixduyar@ualr.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

School facility
conditions

25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.