Inequality/Inequity  at  the  School  DoorAddressing  the  Achievement  Gap  in  a  Different  WayAcademy  for  Educational  Studies  Conference  San  Antonio,  TXMarch  7-­‐9,  2016Presenters:    Angel  Ford  &  G.  Victor  Hellman,  Ed.D.

The  Education  Facilities  Clearinghouse  is  program  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Education  and  Human  Development  of  the  George  Washington  University  and  is  funded  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Education.

Discussion  Points• Inequality  in  school  facilities• Unsatisfactory  school  buildings  affect  learning• Inequality  of  facilities  and  resources  contribute  to  the  achievement  gap• Equalize  facilities  and  resources  and  equalize  achievement

School  Facility  Conditions

• The  average  school  building  is  over  40  years  old  (NCES, 2014)• Not  always  a  problem•Maintenance  • Retrofits

School  Facility  Conditions• The  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  (ASCE)  gave  school  facilities  a  “D”  (ASCE,  2013).  • “Below  standard”• “Significantly  deteriorated”• “Strong  risk  of  failure”

• Only  60  percent  of  schools  have  a  plan  for  improvements/repairs  (NCES,  2014).

Deferred  Maintenance  (Council  of  Great  City  Schools,  2014)  

•Estimated  to  be  between  $271  billion  and  $542  billion•Depending  on  life  cycle  of  50  or  25  years.

School  Facility  Conditions

• National  Center  for  Educational  Statistics  (NCES,  2014)• 53%  of  public  schools  need  repairs,  renovations,  and  modernizations  to  be  in  good  condition• 29%  need  improvements  to  meet  minimal  safety  standards

Facility  Conditions  Affect  Achievement

• Affects  occupants’  attitudes,  motivations,  and  performance  (Bowers  &  Urick,  2011;  Cleveland  &  Fisher,  2014;  Earthman  &  Lemasters,  2011;  Mompremier,  2012;  Uline,  et  al.,  2010).  

• Directly  affects  achievement• Virginia  -­‐ students  scored  2.2  – 3.9  percent  higher  when  in  satisfactory  buildings  (Bullock,  2007).    • Texas  -­‐ academic  achievement  was  4-­‐9  percent  higher  in  schools  in  the  best  conditions  (Blincoe,  2008).  

Elements  that  Affect  Achievement

• Lighting• Acoustics• Climate  Control• Building  Age• Overcrowding  &  school  size• Indoor  Air  Quality• Color/Aesthetics

Achievement  gap

• Standardized  testing• Drop-­‐out  rates  • College  readiness• General  academic  achievement  (Wright,  2012).  

• Cycle  – poor  achievement  =  poor  funding  (Wright,  2012).  

Achievement  gap

• Lower  socio-­‐economic  students• English  language  learners• Students  with  disabilities•Minorities• Homeless  students• Students  in  foster  care  (NEA,  2015)

2013 NAEP%  Proficient

Free  Lunch Reduced  Lunch Not  Eligible

8th Grade  Math 16% 23% 35%8th Grade  Reading

18% 28% 42%

Achievement  gap  (NEA,  2015)

Socio-­‐Economic  Factors

Achievement  gap  (NEA,  2015)

English  Language  Learners

•2013• ELL  students  averaged  23%  to  30%  below  their  counterparts  in  proficiency  levels.•Only  3  to  4%  of  ELL  eighth  graders  were  proficient  in  math  and  reading.

Effective  Classroom  Design

• Flexible/Adaptable• Individual  work  areas• Layout  for  whole  class  discussions/interactions• Spaces  for  small  group  work• Spaces  for  concurrent  differentiated  learning  • Integrated  technology

•

Facility  Conditions

Facility  Conditions

Opportunity  Gap

Achievement  Gap

California  Facility  Funding  (Vincent  &  Jain,  2015)•Most  school  districts  underspend•Wealthy  districts  spend  more  on  facilities/capital  improvements• Poor  districts  spend  more  on  maintenance  and  operations  for  facilities  

District  Spending  in  California  (Vincent  &  Jain,  2015)

• Under  half  met  maintenance  and  operations  spending  benchmark  (3%  CRV)• Under  half  met  capital  renewal  benchmark  (2%  CRV)• 40%  fall  short  on  both  benchmarks,  leaving  them  with  lower  assessed  value• Higher  valued  districts  spend  more  on  facilities• Facility  needs  are  higher  and  more  burdensome  where  more  low  income  students  attend

Figure  from  Vincent  &  Jain  (2015)

Recommendations  (Vincent  &  Jain,  2015)• Establish  set  funds  for  facilities• Distribute  funds  equitably• Improve  planning  and  budgeting  standards• Establish  statewide  facility  database  as  a  guide  

What  can  be  done?• Policy  changes• Disseminate  information  about  learning  environment  impacts• Construction  of  new  schools• Renovations  of  older  buildings• Engagement  of  the  community• Professional  development  on  classroom  design  and  layout

Future  research• Replicate  studies,  qualitative,  quantitative  and  mixed  methods• Establish  programs  to  create  the  best  physical  environments  and  study  the  effects.• Study  effects  of  school  conditions  on  teacher  retention.• Data  Mining• Combining/Linking  NCES  datasets

References• American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers   (ASCE).  (2013).  2013  Report  Card  for  America’s  Infrastructure.Reston,  VA:  American  

Society  of  Civil  Engineers.    Retrieved   from  http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/schools/overview• Baker,  B.  D.  (2014). America’s  most  financially  disadvantaged  school  districts  and  how  they  got  that  way. Center  for  

American  Progress.  • Baker,  B.  D.,  &  Corcoran,  S.  P.  (2012).  The  Stealth  Inequities  of  School  Funding:  How  State  and  Local  School  Finance  Systems  

Perpetuate  Inequitable  Student  Spending. Center  for  American  Progress.• Bell,   S.  (2010).  Project-­‐based  learning  for  the  21st  century:  Skills   for  the  future.  The  Clearing  House, 83(2),  39-­‐43.• Blincoe,   J.  M.  (2008). The  age  and  condition  of  Texas  high  schools  as  related  to  student  academic   achievement.  

(Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation).    The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin.  • Bullock,  C.  C.  (2007). The  relationship  between  school  building  conditions  and  student  achievement  at  the  middle  school  

level  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia (Doctoral  dissertation,  Virginia  Polytechnic  Institute  and  State  University).• Caballero,  D.,  Van  Riesen,  S.  A.,  Álvarez,  S.,  Nussbaum,  M.,  De  Jong,  T.,  &  Alario-­‐Hoyos,  C.  (2014).  The  effects  of  whole-­‐class  

interactive   instruction  with  single  display  groupware  for  triangles. Computers  &  education,70,  203-­‐211.• Carter,  P.  L.,  &  Welner,  K.  G.  (2013).Closing  the  opportunity  gap:  What  America  must  do  to  give  every  child  an  even  chance.  

Oxford  University  Press.• Cash,  C.  (1993).  Building  Condition  and  Student  Achievement  and  Behavior.  (Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation).  Virginia  

Polytechnic  Institute  and  State  University.  Blacksburg,  VA.  • Cheng,  G.,  English,  S.,  &  Filardo,  M.  (2011).  Facilities:  Fairness  and  Effects:  Evidence  and  recommendations  concerning   the  

impact  of  school  facilities  on  civil   rights  and  student  achievement. Washington,  DC:  21st  Century  School  Fund,  192.

References• Cleveland,  B.,  &  Fisher,  K.  (2014).  The  evaluation  of  physical  learning  environments:  a  critical  review  of  the  

literature. Learning  Environments  Research, 17(1),  1-­‐28.• Council  of  Great  City  Schools.  (2014).    Reversing  the  cycle  of  deterioration  in  the  nations  public  school  

buildings.  • Conlin,  M.,  &  Thompson,  P.  N.  (2014).  Michigan  and  Ohio  K–12  Educational  Financing  Systems:  Equality  and  

Efficiency. Education  Finance  and  Policy.• Duncanson E.  (2014).  Lasting  effects  of  creating  classroom  space:  A  study  of  teacher  behavior.  The  Journal  of  

the  International  Society  for  Educational  Planning,  21(3),  29-­‐40.• Earthman,  G.  I.  (2006).  My  Classroom  Appraisal  Protocol. Survey  Instrument.  Blacksburg,  VA:  Virginia  

Polytechnic  Institute  and  State  University.• Earthman,  G.  I.,  &  Lemasters,  L.  K.  (2009).  Teacher  attitudes  about  classroom  conditions.  Journal  of  

Educational  Administration,  47(3),  323-­‐335.• Earthman,  G.  I.,  &  Lemasters,  L.  K.  (2011).  The  influence  of  school  building  conditions  on  students  and  

teachers:  A  theory-­‐based  research  program  (1993-­‐2011).  The  ACEF  Journal,  1(1),  15-­‐36.• Ford  ,  A.  F.,  (2016).    Planning  Classroom  Design  and  Layout  to  Increase  Pedagogical  Options  for  Secondary  

Teachers.  Educational  Planning  23(1),  25-­‐34.  • Kozol,  J.  (2012). Savage  inequalities:  Children  in  America's  schools.  Broadway  Books.

References• National  Center  for  Education  Statistics  (NCES).  (2014).  Condition  of  America’s  public  schools  facilities.  

Retrieved  from  http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf• National  Education  Association  (NEA).  (2015).    Understaning the  Gaps:    Who  are  we  leaving  behind  – and  

how  far?  Retrieved  from  https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/18021-­‐Closing_Achve_Gap_backgrndr_7-­‐FINAL.pdf

• Owens,  A.,  Reardon,  S.  F.,  &  Jencks,  C.  (2014).  Trends  in  school  economic  segregation,  1970  to  2010.• Parsons,  E.  C.,  &  Turner,  K.  (2014).  The  Importance  of  History  in  the  Racial  Inequality  and  Racial  Inequity  in  

Education:  New  Orleans  as  a  Case  Example.  Negro  Educational  Review, 65(1-­‐4),  99.• Smith,  C.  D.  (2014).  CONTINUED  DISPARITIES  IN  SCHOOL  FACILITIES:  ANALYZING  BROWN  V.  BOARD  OF  

EDUCATION’S  SINGULAR  APPROACH  TO  QUALITY  EDUCATION. Tennessee  Journal  of  Race,  Gender,  &  Social  Justice, 3(1),  3.

• Tanner,  C.  K.  (2015). Effects  of  school  architectural  designs  on  students’  Accomplishments: An  meta-­‐analysis.  Retrieved  from  the  Education  Facilities  Clearinghouse:   http://www.efc.gwu.edu/library/effects-­‐of-­‐school-­‐architectural-­‐designs-­‐on-­‐students-­‐accomplishments-­‐a-­‐meta-­‐analysis/

• Together,  B.  E.  S.  (2006).  Growth  and  disparity:  A  decade  of  US  public  school  construction.Building  Educational  Success  Together,  Washington,  DC,  www.  edfacilities.  org/pubs/GrowthandDisparity.  pdf.

• Vincent,  J.  M.,  &  Jain,  L.  S.  (2015).  Going  it  Alone.  Center  for  Cities  and  Schools,  University  of  California  Berkeley.