Everyone supports higher standards for education, yet many still ask... do the facilities in which our children learn really matter?

Achievement — Students in school buildings in poor condition scored six percent below students that were in schools in fair condition and 11 percent below students in schools in excellent condition.

(Edwards, 1991. Building conditions, parental involvement and student achievement in the D.C. public schools.)

Achievement — Student achievement was as much as 11 percentile points lower in substandard buildings, as compared to above-standard buildings.

(Hines, 1996. Building Condition and student achievement and behavior.)

Acoustics — Research indicates that high levels of background noise, much of it from heating and cooling systems, adversely affect learning environments, particularly for young children who require optimal conditions for hearing and comprehension.

(U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the Acoustical Society of America, 2002)

Attendance — Children miss more than 10 million school days each year because of asthma exacerbated by poor IAQ. (American Lung Association, 2002, Asthma in Children Fact Sheet.)

Behavior — This study demonstrated a positive relationship between upgraded school facilities and math achievement. Physical environmental attributes of school facilities play an important role in students' academic performance, attitudes and behavior.

(Maxwell, 1999. School Building Renovation and Student Performance, Syracuse City Schools.)

Daylighting — Students with the most daylighting in their classrooms performed 15 to 20 percent better on math tests and 19 to 26 percent better on reading tests than those with the least daylighting.

(Hershong Mahone Group, 1999. Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance.)

Health — Overall evidence strongly suggests that poor environments in schools, primarily due to effects of indoor pollutants, adversely affect the health, performance and attendance of students.

(U.S. Department of Education, 2004. A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects of Indoor Environments on Students' Health, Academic Performance and Attendance.)

Performance — Of 36 possible relationships between facility measures and test performance, 11 were statistically significant. Of 48 possible relationships between measures of family

background and school attachment, nine were statistically significant. When differences in individual ability are controlled, facilities have as much impact on test performance as measures of family background and school attachment. (Lewis, 2000. CEFPI Where Children Learn Project, Milwaukee Public Schools.)

Safety and Security — Crime sprouts from a disorderly environment plagued by broken windows, graffiti and similar disruptions because criminals get the message that "no one cares what happens here." (Wilson, 1982. Broken Windows)

School Size — Students in small schools "make more rapid progress toward graduation, are more satisfied with small schools, fewer of them drop out than from larger schools, and they behave better in small schools." (Raywid, 1999)

Teachers — Poor facilities contribute to the high turnover rates endemic to central urban school districts; in turn, high teacher turnover leads to increased recruitment and training efforts that drain schools of financial and human capital, both of which are essential to educational success. (21st Century School Fund and Ford Foundation Report, 2002)

Teachers — While clearly important, teacher salaries are not all that matter. Teacher preferences across a range of job and school conditions may be just as important as salary in the retention decision. According to this study, "teachers might be willing to take lower salaries in exchange for better working conditions."

(Buckley, Schneider, Shang, 2004. The Effects of School Facility Quality on Teacher Retention in Urban School Districts.)

Working Conditions — A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded that "physical conditions have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general learning environment." Building renovations in one district led teachers to feel "a renewed sense of hope, of commitment, a belief that the district cared about what went on that building." In dilapidated buildings in another district, the atmosphere was punctuated more by despair and frustration, with teachers reporting that leaking roofs, burned out lights and broken toilets were the typical backdrop for teaching and learning." (Corcoran et al., 1988. Working in Urban Schools)

Priorities — The depressed physical environment of many schools... is believed to reflect society's lack of priority for these children and their education.

(Poplin and Weeres, 1992. Voices from the Inside: A Report on Schooling from Inside the Classroom )