School Facilities & Student Performance 

Summary of Research Studies 

June 2018 
 
A growing body of research has found that school facilities can have a profound impact on 
both teacher and student outcomes. With respect to teachers, school facilities affect teacher 
recruitment, retention, commitment, and effort. With respect to students, school facilities 
affect health, behavior, engagement, learning, and growth in achievement. Thus, researchers 
generally conclude that without adequate facilities and resources, it is extremely difficult to 
serve large numbers of children with complex needs. 
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEPA), (2015). The Importance of School Facilities in 
Improving Student Outcomes. Retrieved from www.psu.edu.ceepa. 
https://sites.psu.edu/ceepa/2015/06/07/the-importance-of-school-facilities-in-improving-student-o
utcomes/ 
 
This paper shows that the condition of school facilities has an important impact on student 
performance and teacher effectiveness. In particular, research demonstrates that comfortable 
classroom temperature and noise level are very important to efficient student performance. 
The age of school buildings is a useful proxy in this regard, since older facilities often have 
problems with thermal environment and noise level. A number of studies have measured 
overall building condition and its connection to student performance; these have consistently 
shown that students attending schools in better condition outperform students in 
substandard buildings by several percentage points. School building conditions also 
influence teacher effectiveness. Teachers report that physical improvements greatly enhance 
the teaching environment. Finally, school overcrowding also makes it harder for students to 
learn; this effect is greater for students from families of low socioeconomic status. Analyses 
show that class size reduction leads to higher student achievement. 
Earthman, G. I. (2002). School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement. ​UCLA's 
Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access​. Retrieved from 
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439 
 
 
The objective of this research is to identify the relationship between formal learning spaces 
and student learning outcomes. Using a quasi-experimental design, researchers partnered 
with an instructor who taught identical sections of the same course in two radically different 
formal learning environments to isolate the impact of the physical environment on student 
learning. The results of the study reveal that, holding all factors except the learning spaces 
constant, students taking the course in a technologically enhanced environment conducive to 
active learning techniques outperformed their peers who were taking the same course in a 
more traditional classroom setting. The evidence suggests strongly that technologically 
enhanced learning environments, independent of all other factors, have a significant and 
positive impact on student learning. 
Brooks, D. C. (2011), Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student 
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42: 719-726. 
doi:​10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x 
 
Research studies listed in this summary are not exhaustive nor necessarily reflect local demographics
Assessments have been made of 153 classrooms in 27 schools in order to identify the impact 
of the physical classroom features on the academic progress of the 3766 pupils who occupied 
each of those specific spaces.This study confirms the utility of the naturalness, individuality 
and stimulation (or more memorably, SIN) conceptual model as a vehicle to organise and 
study the full range of sensory impacts experienced by an individual occupying a given 
space. In this particular case the naturalness design principle accounts for around 50% of the 
impact on learning, with the other two accounting for roughly a quarter each. Within this 
structure, seven key design parameters have been identified that together explain 16% of the 
variation in pupils' academic progress achieved. These are Light, Temperature, Air Quality, 
Ownership, Flexibility, Complexity and Colour. The muted impact of the whole-building 
level of analysis provides some support for the importance of “inside-out design”. The 
identification of the impact of the built environment factors on learning progress is a major 
new finding for schools' research, but also suggests that the scale of the impact of building 
design on human performance and wellbeing in general, can be isolated and that it is 
non-trivial. It is argued that it makes sense to capitalise on this promising progress and to 
further develop these concepts and techniques. 
Barrett, Peter, et al. "The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, 
multi-level analysis." ​Building and Environment​ 89 (2015): 118-133. 
 
Discusses a study that explores whether improving school buildings has a direct and positive 
affect on student learning, attendance, and teacher turnover rates. Identifies the 
environmental aspects of the school facility that have the potential to enhance learning. The 
study shows a direct relationship between building quality and student achievement.  
O'Neill, D. J., & Oates, A. D. (2001). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, 
behavior, attendance, and teacher turnover rate in Central Texas middle schools. ​Educational 
Facility Planner​, 36(3), 14-22. 
 
This paper reports on a literature review conducted in the UK for the Design Council and 
CfBT (Higgins et al., 2005) which looked at the evidence of the impact of environments on 
learning in schools. We have reviewed the available evidence regarding different facets of 
the physical environment and provided an analysis based on different areas of effect, 
including the extent to which different facets interact (positively and negatively) with one 
another. Our conclusions suggest that, although the research often indicates the parameters 
of an effective environment, there is an overall lack of empirical evidence about the impact of 
individual elements of the physical environment which might inform school design at a 
practical level to support student achievement. However, at a secondary level of analysis, 
there are indications that environmental change can be part of a catalytic process of school 
development and improvement.  
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound foundation? What we 
know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for 
the Future. ​Oxford Review of Education​, 33(1), 47-70. 
 
An explanatory, mixed method study examined the impact of learning spaces on teachers’ 
pedagogy, student engagement and student learning outcomes in a technology-rich school 
setting. Its quasi-experimental design allowed examination of differences in these variables 

Research studies listed in this summary are not exhaustive nor necessarily reflect local demographics
between two settings - ‘traditional’ classrooms, and ‘new generation learning spaces’ 
(NGLS). Results from quantitative analyses over a one-year period indicated that particular 
configurations of learning spaces did have a measurable effect on how students’ perceived 
their learning experiences and their engagement levels, with improvements often linked to 
NGLS. In addition, comparative analyses of experimental and control group standardised 
assessment data in subjects English and mathematics indicated a similar effect for the same 
participants. The study suggests that a single-subject, repeated measures design (SSRD) can 
be used to measure the outcomes effect of space on student learning outcomes. In this regard, 
this approach addresses a perceived lack of empirical data highlighted by recent reviews of 
research on this topic. 
Byers, Terry, Wesley Imms, and Elizabeth Hartnell-Young. "Making the case for space: The effect 
of learning spaces on teaching and learning." ​Curriculum and Teaching​ 29.1 (2014): 5-19. 
 
Improving student achievement is vital for our nation’s competitiveness. Scientific research 
shows how the physical classroom environment influences student achievement. Two 
findings are key: First, the building’s structural facilities profoundly influence learning. 
Inadequate lighting, noise, low air quality, and deficient heating in the classroom are 
significantly related to worse student achievement. Over half of U.S. schools have inadequate 
structural facilities, and students of color and lower income students are more likely to 
attend schools with inadequate structural facilities. Second, scientific studies reveal the 
unexpected importance of a classroom’s symbolic features, such as objects and wall décor, in 
influencing student learning and achievement in that environment. Symbols inform students 
whether they are valued learners and belong within the classroom, with far-reaching 
consequences for students’ educational choices and achievement. We outline policy 
implications of the scientific findings—noting relevant policy audiences—and specify critical 
features of classroom design that can improve student achievement, especially for the most 
vulnerable students. Inadequate school facilities are related to worse test scores, even when 
taking into account (by statistically controlling for) the socioeconomic status and racial 
makeup of students (Crampton, 2009; Durán-Narucki, 2008; Lewis, 2001; Tanner, 2008).  
Cheryan, Sapna, et al. "Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement." ​Policy Insights 
from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences​ 1.1 (2014): 4-12. 
 
Results confirmed a link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement in 
English and mathematics. As well, quality facilities were significantly positively related to 
three school climate variables. Finally, results confirmed the hypothesis that school climate 
plays a mediating role in the relationship between facility quality and student achievement. 
Cynthia Uline, Megan Tschannen-Moran, (2008) "The walls speak: the interplay of quality 
facilities, school climate, and student achievement", ​Journal of Educational Administration​, Vol. 46 
Issue: 1, pp.55-73, https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810849817 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Research studies listed in this summary are not exhaustive nor necessarily reflect local demographics
  
 
Thermal Control & Student Performance 
 
How does temperature affect the human capital production process? Evidence from 4.5 
million New York City high school exit exams indicates that heat exposure may affect 
educational performance in both the short and long run. Taking an exam on a 90°F day 
relative to a 72°F day results in a reduction in exam performance that is equivalent to a 
quarter of the Black-White achievement gap, and meaningfully affects longer-run 
educational outcomes as well, leading to a 12.3% higher likelihood of failing a subject exam 
and a 2.5% lower likelihood of on-time high school graduation. Furthermore, cumulative 
heat exposure over the course of the preceding school year may reduce the rate of learning as 
seen in exit exam scores, controlling for the short-run effect of exam day temperature. 
Teachers try to offset some of the impacts of exam day heat stress by selectively boosting 
grades for students who experience particularly hot exam sittings, perhaps in response to 
low levels of classroom air conditioning. 
Park, J. (2016). Temperature, test scores, and educational attainment. ​Harvard University Economics 
Department​. 
 
This paper analyzed the effect of summer heat on academic achievement. Summer heat can 
negatively affect student learning, as previous studies have shown that high temperatures in 
laboratory settings have a negative effect on cognitive abilities. For this analysis, the test 
scores of five different cohorts were combined with city-level daily temperature data. To 
control for unobserved heterogeneity, the test scores of students within the same school were 
compared over time (school-fixed effects estimation). Summer heat negatively affected 
student test scores. Specifically, an additional day with a maximum daily temperature 
exceeding 34°C (93.2°F) during the summer, relative to a day with a maximum temperature 
between 28°C (82.4°F) and 30°C (86° F), decreased the scores of math and English tests by 
0.0042 and 0.0064 standard deviations, respectively. No significant effects were found on the 
reading test scores. In addition, these effects were larger in relatively cooler cities, but did not 
differ based on gender. Finally, the previous year's summer also had negative effects on the 
current year's test scores. 
Cho, H. (2017). The effects of summer heat on academic achievement: A cohort analysis. ​Journal of 
Environmental Economics and Management, ​83​,​ 185-196. 
 
An analysis published by the National Bureau of Economic Research comparing student test 
scores with average temperatures suggests that when classrooms get too hot it prevents 
students from learning as well as they would in more comfortable temperatures, with lasting 
impacts on students' future success and their ability to contribute economically. It also found 
that adequate investment in school infrastructure – namely air conditioning – can mitigate 
the negative effects of hot weather. 
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2018-05-29/study-hotter-classrooms-make-i
t-harder-for-students-to-learn​ (2018) 
 
 

Research studies listed in this summary are not exhaustive nor necessarily reflect local demographics
  
Return on Investment  
 
Public investments in repairs, modernization, and construction of schools cost billions. Yet 
little is known of the nature of infrastructure investments and the subsequent causal impacts 
on student outcomes. Because capital investments take many forms, it could operate to close 
(or widen) achievement gaps. This paper characterizes capital spending resulting from 
successful bond elections and evaluates its impact on student performance by exploiting 
spending variation generated from close school bond elections. School districts with 
successful and unsuccessful bond measures in close elections are similar in initial spending 
levels and other characteristics, but differ in capital investments following elections. We find 
that bond passage leads to school openings and tangible improvements in facility conditions 
at older campuses. Overall, we find modest increases in student achievement and 
attendance, primarily among poor students. These gains occur at existing campuses, 
suggesting that renovations (not merely the construction of new schools) can improve 
student achievement. Complementary analysis exploiting cross-student variation also 
supports the conclusion of small but measurable impacts on student achievement, high 
school graduation, and college entry. Though modest, these gains translate into favorable 
cost-effectiveness in comparison to other interventions due to the durability of capital 
investment. 
Martorell, P., Stange, K., & McFarlin Jr, I. (2016). Investing in schools: capital spending, facility 
conditions, and student achievement. ​Journal of Public Economics​, 140, 13-29. 

Research studies listed in this summary are not exhaustive nor necessarily reflect local demographics