GAO-10-32: SCHOOL FACILITIES: Physical Conditions in School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands, October 2009.
Source: Report GAO–10–32, U.S. Government Accountability Office, October 2009.
Summary
This report summarizes the findings of the last 30 years of research on how school facilities affect student outcomes, examining the evidence from 28 studies selected after a review of over 100 studies.
The GAO’s findings argue strongly that there is no meaningful causal relationship between school facilities and student outcomes. (None of researchers behind the 28 studies could say that the size of the causal effect was different from zero.)
Background on the GAO report
From the section “Why the GAO did this study”:
In response to concern about student school facility conditions and concern that these conditions can affect student outcomes, GAO was asked to describe (1) the physical condition of schools in districts receiving Impact Aid because of students residing on Indian lands and (2) what is known about how school facilities affect student outcomes. GAO interviewed federal, state, and local officials; analyzed available independent school facility assessment data for three states; visited eight school districts that receive Impact Aid; and analyzed studies examining the relationship between school facilities and student outcomes.
(Emphasis mine.)
Summary findings from the GAO’s review of 28 research studies (selected from more than 100):
None of the studies examined was able to conclusively determine how much school facility conditions contribute to student outcomes relative to other factors, such as student demographics, and none proved a causal relationship between school facilities and student outcomes.
(From Highlights page)
Also:
- “Some research suggests that better school facilities are associated with better student outcomes, and school district officials agreed, but there is little evidence of a causal relationship” (p. 18)
- “The research studies we reviewed … often showed that better facilities were associated with better student outcomes; however, there is not necessarily a direct causal relationship, and the associations were often weak compared with their associations with other factors.” (p. 18)
(Emphasis mine)
Methodology
From the study’s “Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology” section:
To determine what is known about how school facilities affect student outcomes, we conducted a search for research studies that addressed this topic. We identified studies dating back to 1980 and selected those that were either from peer-reviewed journal articles or were methodologically rigorous studies from (or sponsored by) other sources, such as government institutions. Two GAO staffers, one analyst from the audit team and one methodologist from the research group, systematically reviewed each of the studies selected, evaluating the design, measurement strategies, and methodological integrity and entering this information into a database. From more than 100 studies that we initially selected, 24 were selected to be included in our review. We excluded studies because, for example, they did not provide sufficient detail on the analytical approach or failed to control for other plausible explanations for differences. The selected studies were sufficiently rigorous and included tests of hypotheses; measures of association; and multivariate techniques, such as ordinary least squares regression (see table 3).
In addition to these 24 studies, we reviewed 4 additional studies that focused on the relationship between facility condition and teacher outcomes rather than student outcomes. The selected studies were sufficiently rigorous and included tests of hypotheses; measures of association; and multivariate techniques, such as ordinary least squares regression.
Each of these studies is subject to certain methodological limitations, which limit the extent to which the results can be generalized to school facilities in general or to school facilities in Indian Impact Aid districts. Many of the studies focus on comparisons of schools without information about the outcomes in schools before and after changes in school facilities. This makes it difficult to isolate the effects of improvements in school facilities. Some studies used small samples or had low response rates to surveys or had missing data for many schools in the original sample. Several studies focused on schools in other countries and the extent to which their results are applicable to schools in the United States is uncertain. In at least one case, the research was funded in part by a group—such as a building association—that may have had an interest in the results.
We conducted our work from September 2008 to October 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings in this product.
