This paper examines existing research on the impact of school facilities on student health and performance. It also identifies areas for further research.
This article look at the students who attend for-profits, the reason they choose these schools, and student out-comes on the number of broad measures and draw several conclusions. The authors write, the evidences shows that public community colleges may provide an equal or better education at lower cost at any for-profits. But budget pressure mean that community colleges and other nonselective public institutions may not be able to meet the demand for higher education. Second, for-profits appear to be at their best with well-defined programs of short duration that prepare students for a specific occupation. But for-profit completion rates, default rates, and labor market outcomes for students seeking associate's or higher degrees compare unfavorable with those of public postsecondary institutions.
This article discuss about the history of California spending on school facilities and the impact of the situation.
Frey, S. (2016). Report: California and the nation don’t spend enough on school facilities. Edsource. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2016/report-california-and-the-nation-dont-spend-enough-on-school-facilities/562142
This article explore the relationship between per pupil spending and learning, particularly in developing countries that spend much lower levels in education than do OECD countries. Their findings suggest that, when education systems spend above $8,000, the association between student learning and per student spending is no longer statistically significant. Therefore, they find a threshold effect after this level of resources is met, indicating a declining relationship between resources and achievement at high levels of expenditure (consistent with other recent literature). There is a positive relationship between student learning and per pupil expenditure among the low-spending countries (below $8,000 per student), but a flat relationship among high-spending countries.
Vegas, E. (2016).Why Money Matters for Improving Education. Brooking Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/07/21/why-money-matters-for-improving-education/
This paper examines nineteen different studies on the impact of school facility condition and design on student and teacher performance.
Category: 191, 1253
21st Century School Fund. (2010, February). Research on the Impact of School Facilities on Students and Teachers: A Summary of Studies Published Since 2000. Retrieved from http://www.21csf.org/best-home/docuploads/pub/210_lit-review-lettersize-final.pdf
This paper examines best available research on the impact that various aspects of school facilities have on student academic outcomes, including: indoor air quality, ventilation, and thermal comfort; lighting; acoustics; building age and quality; school size; and class size.
The research is examined here in six categories: indoor air quality, ventilation, and thermal comfort; lighting; acoustics; building age and quality; school size; and class size.
Schneider, M. (2002, November). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? Retrieved from http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf
Environmental features of elementary school classrooms are examined in relation to distraction and privacy. Teachers' adjustments of their activities to make their settings less distracting are also explored.
Ahrentzen, S., & Evans, G. W. (1984). Distraction, privacy, and classroom design. Environment and Behavior, 16(4), 437-454.
This research compare for-profit college networks with the public sector. The author emphasize economic criteria for evaluating colleges and the need to consider many such criteria to make a valid comparison. In conclusion, public colleges are much cheaper than for-profit colleges. From a student perspective, this difference would have to be offset by a much superior performance of for-profit colleges to be advantageous. However, the evidence tends to point in the opposite direction. While ITT’s post-enrollment student earnings are comparable to those of many public colleges, on the whole the outcomes of public colleges appear to be better than those of the two closed for-profit networks of colleges.
Belfield, C. (2016). Comparing Closed For-Profit Colleges to Public College Sector. CAPSEE. Retrieved from https://capseecenter.org/comparing-closed-for-profit-colleges-to-public-college-sector/
This paper shows that the condition of school facilities has an important impact on student performance and teacher effectiveness.
Earthman, Glen I.(2002). School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement. UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access. UCLA: UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439
Children were more distracted by the visual environment, spent more time off task, and demonstrated smaller learning gains when the walls were highly decorated than when the decorations were removed.
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1326–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801
This report was generated in response to the enormous role technology is, and will increasingly be, playing in providing remote learning opportunities for students, whether in supporting part-time “school based” education or temporarily replacing it altogether.
Gray, L., and Lewis, L. (2020). Teachers’ Use of Technology for School and Homework Assignments: 2018–19 (NCES 2020-048). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020048
Technology is everywhere in education: Public schools in the United States now provide at least one computer for every five students. And in 2015-16, for the first time, more state standardized tests for the elementary and middle grades will be administered via technology than by paper and pencil.
Herold, B. (2016, February 5). Technology in education: An overview. Education Week.https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/index.html
This paper reviews research that correlates student achievement and the condition and utility of school facilities. The discussion focuses on the influence of various facility conditions on students, including building age, temperature and ventilation, acoustics, lighting, curriculum development, and school size. Students who attend better buildings have test scores ranging from 5 to 17 percentile points higher than students in substandard facilities.
Lyons, J. B. (2001). Do School Facilities Really Impact a Child's Education? IssueTrak: A CEFPI Brief on Educational Facility Issues. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED458791)
This report provides a new perspective on the nation’s largest virtual school provider through a systematic review and analysis of student characteristics, school finance, and school performance of K12-operated schools.
Miron, G., & Urschel, J. L. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time virtual schools: A study of student characteristics, school finance, and school performance in schools operated by K12, Inc. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533960.pdf
The report highlights the importance of bolstering students’ ability to navigate through digital texts. It also examines the relationship among computer access in schools, computer use in classrooms, and performance in the PISA assessment.
OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264239555-en.pdf?expires=1591112620&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E108C3D7C7CC829D93048D0ED6CB4635
The purpose of this paper is to identify common roles played by principals, how these roles differ across types of schools, and finally, how effectively are preparation programs training principals in these roles.
Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Gundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of leading schools. A National Study of the Principalship. Center of Reinventing Public Education. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington. Seattle, WA.
One-to-one computing and bring-your-own-device (BYOD) initiatives are helping to ensure that each student has a device with which to work. Although these technologies can support personalized learning, they haven’t yet transformed our schools into 21st-century utopias where students engage in interactive, individualized learning applications and access information in order to collaboratively solve problems while teachers roam the learning space, coaching and mentoring as their engaged and self-directed students happily work.
Soto, M. S. (2016). Flipped learning as a path to personalization. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 73–87). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Center on Innovations in Learning. http://www.centeril.org/2016handbook/resources/Sota_flipped_chapter_web.pdf
The Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning guide provides practical, actionable information intended to help district leaders (superintendents, principals, and teacher leaders) navigate the many decisions required to deliver cutting-edge connectivity to students. It presents a variety of options for district leaders to consider when making technology infrastructure decisions, recognizing that circumstances and context vary greatly from district to district.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning, Washington, D.C., 2014.
This article provide charts, graphs, maps, and visualizations of all feature data that Education Week released in 2017 and convey some big takeaways about U.S. schools, students, and teachers in 2017.
U.S. Education in 2017 in 10 Charts. Education Week, December. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/us-education-in-2017-in-10-charts.html
This study reinforces the link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement in English and mathematics, and three school climate variables.
Uline, C., & Tschannen‐Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55–73. doi:10.1108/09578230810849817
This article show different approach that researcher took to answer questions on social gradient in education between the countries. Comparing some of these results highlights weak service delivery in many developing countries. Even where resources may be similar, social gradients are steep in some, indicating much worse educational outcomes for the poor. And public resources are often extremely poorly converted into learning. The differential ability of schools and school systems to convert resources into learning outcomes remains a major impediment to improving educational outcomes, and indeed life chances, for the poor.
Van Der Berg, S. (2015). How does the rich-poor learning gap vary across countries?. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2015/03/09/how-does-the-rich-poor-learning-gap-vary-across-countries/
The chapters in this book deal with areas of expertise that most students will need. For example, self-determination skills, functional academics, transportation, home and community living, as well as work preparation and socialization.
Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (2004). Functional curriculum for elementary, middle, and secondary age students with special needs. PRO-ED, Inc. 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin, TX 78757.