First, congratulations to OWP/P | Cannon Design, VS Furniture, and Bruce Mau Design for creating The Third Teacher, a beautiful and useful book. I’ve been interested in better understanding the impact that school facilities have on all aspects of education for about 10 years now, ever since Mary Filardo of the 21st Century School Fund introduced me to the issue by asking for some statistical advice. I believe that The Third Teacher will help greatly in spreading the word about this important issue to a broader audience.
In recent years, I’ve seen a growing number of academic studies looking at the empirical links between the quality of school facilities and a host of outcomes, including student learning (usually measured via standardized testing), teacher attitudes, and parental involvement in schools.
Together with coauthors Mark Schneider and Yi Shang, I’ve conducted some of this research myself, including looking at the relationship between the Overall Compliance Rating (a measure of facilities maintenance and repair) and the Academic Performance Index in schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (available online from the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,) and a look at whether teachers’ reports of facility quality were predictive of their decision to continue teaching at a particular school using original survey data in Washington, D.C. public schools, (available online from the Teachers College Record).
What I’ve found, as most researchers in the area have found, is that there are strong linkages between the quality of school facilities, broadly defined, and these various outcomes. What is harder to determine, however, is the true magnitude of the causal linkage between characteristics of facilities and the outcomes that really matter. For example, a correlation between the Overall Compliance Rating and the academic performance of LAUSD schools may indicate a real causal relationship—or it may simply indicate that better-run schools both keep their physical plants well-maintained and also do a better job of teaching their students (or attracting higher performing students).
This problem is nothing new in education research. Indeed, the recent focus at the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences on the central role of evidence from randomized controlled trials highlights the general increase in awareness of the limits of our evidence base across all areas of education.
I believe that it is time for research on the impacts of school facilities to join this shift to better quality evidence that allows us to make powerful statements about the causal effect of facilities on student achievement, the teacher labor market, and other key factors. This new program of research will involve randomized trials when possible—the systematic manipulation of facilities characteristics under experimental control—to better inform researchers and decision makers about the characteristics of facilities that matter. When randomized trials are too expensive, not feasible, or unethical, we need to turn to powerful natural experiments to help uncover these true causal links as well.
Again, this is not a new idea, even in the area of school facilities research. A wonderful paper by Bronzaft and McCarthy, “The Effect of Elevated Train Noise of Reading Ability,” published in 1975 in the journal, Environment and Behavior (Vol. 7, No. 4) evaluated the impact of the noise from elevated NYC subway trains on student reading achievement and several attitudinal measures. The study used a simple, but elegant design: compare matched classes within a school (over several years) where one class in each group was drawn from those on the east side of the building (less noise), while the matched class was drawn from the nosier west side, next to the elevated tracks. They found, not surprisingly, that train noise was a significant predictor of lower achievement scores. (Thanks to Todd Ely for first pointing me to this paper).
While this sort of natural experiment has its limitations, it nevertheless helps us better understand the true impact of various attributes of school facilities and can serve as an important input to decision makers faced with a cost/benefit analysis of how best to spend a limited budget on capital improvements. I strongly encourage readers of The Third Teacher who are involved in facilities improvement planning and implementation to consider building in randomization or natural experiments (such as phasing-in renovation or improvement) to the projects to help build a stronger evidence base to better make the case for the educational importance of facilities and the indoor environment.
Jack Buckley is Associate Professor of Applied Statistics (and, by courtesy, Applied Psychology, Politics, and Public Policy) at New York University’s Steinhardt School. He is the former Deputy Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Federal statistical agency for education. He can be reached electronically at spb5@nyu.edu.