GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate 

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Physical Conditions in 

School Districts 

Receiving Impact Aid 

for Students Residing 

on Indian Lands 

October 2009 

GAO-10-32 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Physical Conditions in School Districts Receiving

Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands

Highlights of GAO-10-32, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

State and local governments spend 

billions of dollars annually on the 

construction, renovation, and 

maintenance of public school 

facilities, yet concerns persist 

about the condition of some school 

facilities, particularly in school 

districts serving students residing 

on Indian lands. The Department of 

Education’s (Education) Impact 

Aid Program provides funding to 

school districts that are adversely 

impacted by a lack of local revenue 

because of the presence of federal 

land, which is exempt from local 

property taxes. Impact Aid can be 

used for school expenses, such as 

facilities and teacher salaries. 

 

In response to concern about 

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. 

GAO is not making 

recommendations in this report. 

Education provided technical 

clarifications, which GAO 

incorporated as appropriate. 

Limited nationwide data are available about the physical condition of public 

school facilities in school districts that receive Impact Aid funding for 

students living on Indian lands, although data from three states indicate the 

conditions range from good to poor. Montana’s assessment data showed that 

the majority (39 of 60) of Indian Impact Aid school districts had facilities in 

good condition. New Mexico’s data showed that all 19 Indian Impact Aid 

school districts had facilities in either good or fair condition. Washington’s 

data—based on assessments from 9 of 29 Indian Impact Aid school districts—

indicated about half (4 of 9) of the Indian Impact Aid school districts had 

facilities in fair condition and about half (5 of 9) had facilities in poor 

condition. Facility assessments are not comparable across states. School 

district officials from 8 districts told GAO their facility conditions are affected 

by factors such as fiscal capacity, the age of buildings, and remote locations. 

The research studies GAO reviewed on the relationship between the condition 

of school facilities and student outcomes often indicated that better facilities 

were associated with better student outcomes, but there is not necessarily a 

direct causal relationship and the associations were often weak compared 

with those of other factors, such as the prevalence of poverty or other student 

characteristics. A majority of the studies GAO reviewed indicated that better 

school facilities were associated with better student outcomes—such as 

higher scores on achievement tests or higher student attendance rates. Most 

of the studies measured the extent to which better school facilities were 

associated with better outcomes, after taking into account the impact of other 

factors. 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. 

States with School Districts That Received Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands

in 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

WA

OR

CA CO

WY

AZ NM

TX

MS

MT ND

SD WI

MI

NE

FL

ME

ID

NV

AK

MN

KS

UT

OK

NC

IA

WA

OR

CA CO

WY

AZ NM

TX

MS

MT ND

SD WI

MI

NE

FL

ME

ID

NV

AK

MN

KS

UT

OK

NC

MA

IA

Eleven of those states had at least

15 Indian Impact Aid school districts

Three of these states had independent

school facility assessment data

Twenty-seven states that received

Indian Impact Aid funds in 2008

View GAO-10-32 or key components.

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-32 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

Little Information Is Available on the Condition of School Facilities 

in Districts That Receive Impact Aid for Students Living on 

Indian Lands, but Data from Selected States Indicate Conditions 

Ranged from Good to Poor 8 

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 18 

Agency Comments 25 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27 

Appendix II List of School Districts That Received Indian 

Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 2009 33 

Appendix III Examples of Studies Examining School Facilities 

and Student Outcomes 35 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Tables 

Table 1: Eleven States with Large Numbers of Indian Impact Aid 

School Districts in 2008 10 

Table 2: Characteristics of Site Visit School Districts 30 

Table 3: Number of Selected Research Studies on Selected Facility 

and Student Outcome Variables 31 

Table 4: States with School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for 

Students Residing on Indian Lands, Fiscal Year 2009 (as of 

August 2009) 33 

 School Facilities 
Table 5: Examples of Studies on Broad Measures of School 

Facilities and Student Achievement 35 

Table 6: Examples of Other Studies on School Facilities and 

Student Outcomes. 37 

Figures 

Figure 1: Condition of School Facilities in Montana’s Indian Impact 

Aid and Other School Districts 13 

Figure 2: Condition of School Facilities in New Mexico’s Indian 

Impact Aid and Other School Districts 14 

Figure 3: Examples of Old and New School Heating Systems in One 

Montana School District 17 

Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

FCI facility condition index 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

NMCI New Mexico condition index 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Page 1 GAO-10-32 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 29, 2009 

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan 

Chairman 

Committee on Indian Affairs 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

State and local governments spend billions of dollars annually on the 

construction, renovation, and maintenance of public school facilities. 

However, concerns persist about the conditions of some school facilities, 

particularly those located near Indian lands. This is because Indian 

students often attend schools in rural areas with higher levels of poverty, 

and compared with other students often have poorer educational 

outcomes, such as lower scores on standardized tests and lower 

graduation rates. (In this report, we refer to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives as Indians.) Some education experts believe the condition of 

public school facilities can affect student outcomes, and numerous studies 

have attempted to document possible associations. To maintain and build 

public school facilities, school districts generally rely on their local tax 

base. Some school districts have limited access to this source of revenue 

because a portion of the nearby land is owned by the federal government, 

which is exempt from local property taxes. Although funding for school 

operations and construction is primarily considered a state and local issue, 

the Congress established the Impact Aid Program in 1950 to provide 

funding to school districts that are adversely impacted by a lack of local 

revenue because of the presence of federal land. Under the Impact Aid 

basic support program, the Department of Education (Education) awards 

funding to school districts generally on the basis of the number of 

federally connected students they serve, such as those students residing 

on Indian lands or military bases or who have parents in the military or 

who work on federal lands.1

 In 2008, Congress provided $1.1 billion for 

basic educational expenses under the Impact Aid program. Education 

distributed these funds to about 1,200 school districts, with about half of 

1

For the purpose of distributing Impact Aid funds, Indian lands are defined to include 

federal property held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes; 

other designated lands held by individual Indians or Indian tribes; and public land owned 

by the United States that is designated for the sole use and benefit of individual Indians or 

Indian tribes. For a complete definition, see 20 U.S.C. § 7713(7). 

 School Facilities 
 

the funds going to Impact Aid school districts that have students residing 

on Indian lands. 

In response to your request that we describe the condition of facilities in 

school districts that receive Impact Aid for students residing on Indian 

lands, this report addresses the following questions: 

1. What information is available on the physical condition of facilities in 

school districts that receive federal Impact Aid due to students 

residing on Indian lands? 

2. What is known about how school facilities affect student outcomes? 

To determine what information is available about the physical condition of 

school facilities in Indian Impact Aid school districts, we contacted 

officials from state and federal agencies and reviewed relevant federal 

laws and regulations.2, 3

 We also analyzed national state-level data on 

student populations residing on Indian lands and contacted the 11 states 

with a large number of Indian Impact Aid school districts (at least 15 

districts). We obtained data from 4 states that indicated they had 

independent assessment data about the condition of or deficiencies in 

some or all of their public schools. We only accepted assessment data that 

were prepared by an independent party with no apparent vested interest in 

the results of the assessment. We analyzed the states’ data to describe the 

condition of school facilities for all of the Indian Impact Aid and other 

school districts in Montana and New Mexico and the 118 of 295 districts in 

Washington for which data were available (9 of 29 Indian Impact Aid and 

109 of 266 other school districts). We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the analyses used for this report. Although the 4th 

state, Arizona, also had independent assessment data, it identified 

deficiencies rather than the overall condition of school facilities, so we did 

not use the data, but we did include Arizona in site visits. The 3 states from 

which we had usable assessment data represented approximately 

 

2

We use the term “Indian Impact Aid” to refer to those school districts that qualify to 

receive Impact Aid basic support funding because they meet the minimum eligibility 

criteria, namely they have at least 400 students in average daily attendance who are 

federally connected, in this case who reside on Indian lands, or such students comprise at 

least 3 percent of the total number of students in the district. 

3

Although the Bureau of Indian Education also funds, and in some instances operates, 

schools for Indian students, we focus on public schools that receive Impact Aid funds for 

students residing on Indian lands. 

Page 2 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

27 percent of all students residing on Indian lands. In addition, we visited 

2 school districts in each of the 4 states to obtain school district officials’ 

perspectives on factors that affect facility maintenance and to observe 

their facilities. To determine what is known about how the condition of 

school facilities affects student outcomes, we conducted a literature 

search for studies that quantitatively analyzed relationships between 

school facility variables and a variety of student outcomes, such as student 

achievement test scores and student attendance rates. We selected a set of 

24 studies—those in peer-reviewed journals and others that our 

methodologists regarded as sufficiently rigorous—and systematically 

reviewed these studies. (See app. I for a description of our selection 

criteria.) We also discussed the effects of the condition of school facilities 

on students and teachers during our 8 school district site visits and in 

interviews with representatives of Indian Impact Aid associations and 

state Indian Education officials. 

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. See 

appendix I for further information on our scope and methodology, 

appendix II for a list of states with Indian Impact Aid school districts, and 

appendix III for a summary of studies on school facilities and student 

outcomes. 

Background 

Role of the Federal 

Government in Public 

Elementary and Secondary 

Education 

Public elementary and secondary education is primarily a state and local 

government responsibility, although the federal government provides 

supplementary funds to public schools for a variety of purposes, including 

grants for disadvantaged students, special education students, and teacher 

improvement. The federal government provided about 8 percent of 

funding for public education in school year 2005-2006. The allocation of 

federal funds reflects a concern with student outcomes as evidenced by 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, which 

has the goal of ensuring that all children have a fair, equal, and significant 

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. The No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001 (NCLBA), which reauthorized and amended ESEA, requires 

Page 3 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

school districts to make improvements when they fail to make adequate 

yearly progress in raising student achievement. 

The federal government has historically provided for the education of 

Indian children in part through the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education, previously a part of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, funds 170 schools serving students living on 

Indian lands; however, most Indian students now attend public schools. In 

some cases, these schools and Indian Impact Aid schools are in the same 

communities, and students may transfer from one to the other.4

 Among 

some 580,000 Indian children who attend public elementary and secondary 

schools in the United States, about one-third of them are enrolled in Indian 

Impact Aid school districts. An estimated 45,000 Indian students attend 

Bureau of Indian Education schools. The remaining Indian children attend 

other public schools or private schools. 

Impact Aid Program Congress established the Impact Aid program in 1950 to assist public 

school districts that have lost property tax revenue due to the presence of 

tax-exempt federal property, or that have experienced increased costs due 

to the enrollment of federally connected children, including children living 

on Indian lands, military bases, or other federal lands for which school 

districts receive no tax revenue. Public school districts qualify for and 

receive Impact Aid, in part, on the basis of the number of federally 

connected students they serve, such as those who reside on military bases, 

Indian lands, or other federal lands, or others who have parents in the 

military or who work on federal lands.5

The largest component of the Impact Aid program is basic support 

payments, which provided about $1 billion for fiscal year 2008 to about 

 

4

For information concerning Bureau of Indian Education schools, see GAO, Bureau of 

Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal 

Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems, GAO-08-679 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 27, 2008); and Bureau of Indian Education: Improving Interior’s Assistance Would 

Aid Tribal Groups Developing Academic Accountability Systems, GAO-08-1125T

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2008). 

5

The formula for distributing Impact Aid basic support payments also takes into account 

the number of students in certain low-rent housing, the average daily attendance for the 

district, and the national and state per pupil expenditure figures. The Impact Aid program 

also authorizes separate payments on behalf of children eligible to receive services under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act whose parents are members of the Armed 

Forces and those residing on Indian lands. 

Page 4 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

1,200 public school districts,6 including about $520 million to 567 Indian 

Impact Aid school districts for students living on Indian lands in 27 states.7

(See app. II for preliminary fiscal year 2009 data.) 

School districts eligible for Impact Aid decide how to use these funds.8

 For 

example, they may use these funds for costs associated with teacher 

salaries and benefits; transportation; textbooks; and facility maintenance, 

repair, renovation, and construction. Some districts also hold a portion of 

these funds in reserve for use in future years. To be eligible for basic 

support payments for having students living on Indian lands, a school 

district must have at least 400 federally connected students, or these 

students must comprise at least 3 percent of their total number of 

students. The method for determining Indian Impact Aid basic support 

payments provides more funding per federally connected student in school 

districts where these students are a larger share of the total number of 

students and the basic support payments represent a larger share of 

current school district expenditures.9

 For Indian Impact Aid school 

districts, the average amount of this basic support per student living on 

Indian lands was $4,534 in fiscal year 2008. After adjusting for inflation, 

this average rose 7 percent from fiscal years 2002 to 2005 and has 

subsequently fallen back to about fiscal year 2002 levels. 

 

6

As of August 2009, 93 percent of the approximately $1.1 billion of fiscal year 2008 

appropriations for basic support payments had been paid to 1,229 school districts. 

Education makes final payments of the remaining funds when final decisions are reached 

on all applications, which Impact Aid Office staff indicate typically occurs about 2 years 

after the appropriation year. 

7

These are the amounts paid to date as of December 2008, at which time 92 percent of all 

basic support payment Impact Aid appropriations for fiscal year 2008 had been paid. Some 

states, such as New Mexico, with Education approved programs for equalization of funding 

for school districts adjust the level of state funding districts receive on the basis of the 

amount of local revenue and Impact Aid districts receive. 

8

ESEA places no specific restriction on the use of Impact Aid basic support funds, but does 

require, for example, that children living on Indian lands participate in the programs and 

activities supported by these funds on an equal basis with all other children, and that 

parents and Indian tribes are consulted and involved in planning and developing these 

programs and activities. 

9

Due in part to these provisions, in fiscal year 2008, Indian Impact Aid districts with more 

than 40 percent of students living on Indian lands received overall 21⁄2 times as much in 

basic support per student living on Indian lands as Indian Impact Aid districts with fewer 

students living on Indian lands. 

Page 5 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

The Impact Aid program also includes funding for construction, through 

both a formula grant program and a competitive grant program for school 

districts with high percentages of children living on Indian lands or high 

percentages of children who have a parent on active military duty. 

Congress provided about $17.8 million to the formula grant program in 

both fiscal years 2006 and 2007, but no funding for fiscal years 2008 or 

2009. Formula grants are restricted to Impact Aid school districts with at 

least 50 percent of students living on Indian land or at least 50 percent of 

students who have a parent on active military duty. The competitive 

construction grant program did not receive any funding in fiscal years 2006 

or 2007, but received approximately $17 million for fiscal years 2008 and 

2009. These grants are for school facility emergencies and modernization 

and are restricted to school districts with at least 40 percent of students 

living on Indian lands or at least 40 percent of students who have a parent 

on active military duty. The competitive grant program to date has 

provided funding only for emergency repairs. In July 2009, this program 

awarded grants from the fiscal year 2008 appropriation—totaling about 

$17 million—to 13 Indian Impact Aid school districts.10 The American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) appropriated $100 

million for construction projects by Impact Aid school districts.11 The 

Recovery Act requires that Education provide nearly $40 million of this 

appropriation as formula grants and nearly $60 million as competitive 

grants. The Recovery Act also provides a $53.6 billion State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, some of which may be available to provide funding to 

school districts, including Indian Impact Aid school districts, for a variety 

of purposes (e.g., modernizing, renovating, or repairing public school 

facilities).12

 

10Education regulations define the term “emergency” as “a school facility condition that is 

so injurious or hazardous that it...poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of the 

facility’s students and staff or can be reasonable expected to [do so] in the near future.” 

34 C.F.R. § 222.176. 

11Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 805(b), 123 Stat. 189 (2009). Of the $100 million available for 

construction, approximately $60 million is available for competitive construction grants, 

which are expected to be available to a larger number of Impact Aid districts, because the 

Recovery Act provides eligibility criteria that do not include requirements for a minimum 

number of students who are living on Indian lands or are connected to military bases. 

12Pub. L. No. 111-5, Division A, Title XIV. 

Page 6 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

Assessing Facility 

Conditions 

Building and maintaining sound school facilities is important not only to 

provide a safe and healthy learning environment, but to avoid costly 

repairs or replacements. Facility managers who routinely assess the 

condition of their facilities can identify problems at their earliest stages 

and evaluate buildings for future maintenance and repair needs. Facility 

assessments take a variety of forms, from staff walking through a facility 

and visually inspecting its condition and identifying repair and 

maintenance issues to a more comprehensive assessment in which 

individual building systems, such as electrical, heating, and air 

conditioning, are assessed by a professional inspector and deficiencies are 

identified. To compare the relative condition of facilities, assessors often 

use a “facility condition index” (FCI), which is computed as the cost of 

repairing or replacing parts of the facility that are identified as deficient 

divided by the cost of replacing the entire facility. FCIs are useful in 

comparing the relative condition of facilities only if they are calculated 

using a consistent methodology. A lower FCI indicates a facility in better 

condition. In some cases, assessments of school facilities also include 

estimates of the costs for projects that do not specifically address a facility 

deficiency. These may include projects for bringing facilities into 

compliance with current building codes that the school was not required 

to meet when built; providing additional space in schools that are 

overcrowded; or providing equipment to meet the school’s needs, such as 

a science lab facility. 

Page 7 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

Little Information Is 

Available on the 

Condition of School 

Facilities in Districts 

That Receive Impact 

Aid for Students 

Living on Indian 

Lands, but Data from 

Selected States 

Indicate Conditions 

Ranged from Good to 

Poor 

Limited independent information is available about the physical condition 

of public school facilities that receive Impact Aid funding for students 

living on Indian lands. However, three states—Montana, New Mexico, and 

Washington—have collected independent school facility assessments for 

some or all of their Indian Impact Aid school districts. Assessment data 

from these states indicate that the condition of Indian Impact Aid school 

facilities varies within states and ranges from good to poor. School district 

officials with whom we spoke attributed the condition of their school 

facilities to a number of factors, including age and remote location. 

Limited Information Is 

Available at the National 

Level about the Condition 

of School Facilities in 

Indian Impact Aid School 

Districts 

We did not find independent nationwide data about the condition of 

school facilities in Indian Impact Aid school districts. Education and its 

research entity have collected some information regarding the physical 

condition of school facilities, but none of this information was based on 

independent assessments of school facilities and none covered all Indian 

Impact Aid school districts. According to federal officials with whom we 

spoke: 

• Education collects information on the condition of Indian Impact Aid 

schools from surveys it receives from school districts that are awarded 

construction formula grants. School districts that received construction 

payments in the prior year are required to complete a brief survey as part 

of the Impact Aid application in which they rank the overall condition of 

their school facilities on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 6 (replace). From its 

2008 application, Education collected surveys from 181 school districts, of 

which 31 percent indicated their facilities were in good to excellent 

condition; 54 percent indicated adequate to fair condition; and 15 percent 

indicated poor condition or in need of replacement. However, Education 

does not independently verify the responses or use this information in 

awarding grants, and the number of respondents represents only a small 

portion of the approximately 1,200 Impact Aid school districts that 

received Impact Aid basic support funding in 2008. 

Page 8 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

• In 2007, Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,205 public schools about 

their school’s condition.13, 14 School principals completing the 

questionnaire were asked about the quality of their schools, including thei

satisfaction with the physical condition of their buildings. Eighty-three 

percent of the principals were satisfied or very satisfied with the physica

condition of their permanent buildings. However, due to the small sample 

size, we were not able to obtain statistically meaningful responses for 

Indian Impact Aid schools. In addition, NCES did not independently

the survey responses that were provided by school p

r 

l 

 verify 

rincipals. 

 

Three States Collect 

Independent Assessments 

on the Condition of School 

Facilities at Indian Impact 

Aid School Districts 

Among states with large numbers of Indian Impact Aid school districts (at 

least 15 districts), only Montana, New Mexico, and Washington had 

independent information about the condition of school facilities in some 

or all Indian Impact Aid school districts. These 3 states represented 

approximately 27 percent of all students living on Indian lands. The other 

states with large numbers of Indian Impact Aid school districts (8 of 11) 

had no independent information about the physical condition of the school 

facilities in their school districts (see table 1.) For example, Alaska 

requires districts to assess their own facilities and submit condition 

assessment reports to apply for state maintenance and construction 

grants. However, the data Alaska collects about school condition are not 

independently verified by the state. Arizona began independently assessing 

school facilities in 2004 as part of its public school assessment program to 

ensure that schools meet state minimum condition standards. Arizona has 

collected information on variables related to facilities, including the 

number, type, and size of buildings and whether the school site, 

equipment, and building systems meet the state’s adequacy standards. 

While these data can be used to identify deficiencies, they do not provide 

an overall assessment of whether the school facilities are in good, fair, or 

poor condition. 

13NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to 

education in the United States. 

14B. Chaney and L. Lewis (2007), Public School Principals Report on Their School 

Facilities: Fall 2005 (NCES 2007-007). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Page 9 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

Table 1: Eleven States with Large Numbers of Indian Impact Aid School Districts in 2008 

State 

Number of school 

districts receiving 

Impact Aid for having 

students who live on 

Indian lands 

State collects independent 

assessments of the 

condition of school 

facilities 

Number of Indian lands 

students on the basis of 

average daily 

attendance 

Percentage of national 

total of Indian lands 

students served by 

Impact Aid

Alaska 34 No 12,114 10.57%

Arizona 58 No 30,383 26.52

California 35 No 4,897 4.27

Minnesota 23 No 3,530 3.08

Montana 61 Yes 7,434 6.49

New Mexico 19 Yes 18,294 15.97

North Dakota 17 No 2,346 2.05

Oklahoma 194 No 10,610 9.26

South Dakota 26 No 5,839 5.10

Washington 29 Yes 5,686 4.96

Wisconsin 17 No 3,273 2.86

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education and state data. 

The facility assessment programs in Montana, New Mexico, and 

Washington are unique in terms of their purpose, frequency of assessment, 

number of districts assessed, and data collected. 

• In 2005, Montana’s legislature authorized the appropriation of funds for a 

one-time condition and needs assessment for all K-12 public schools. This 

occurred in 2008 when Montana assessed school facilities in its 422 public 

school districts using a facility condition assessment approach that 

involved inspecting various school building components, identifying the 

observable deficiencies, and estimating the costs to repair the deficiencies 

and replace the entire facility. Montana inspected 11 building systems for 

each facility, including the HVAC system (heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning); electrical system; plumbing system; foundations; exterior 

sidings; floor systems; roof systems; interior finishes (walls, floors, and 

windows); special fixtures (cabinets, chalkboards, and fixed seating); 

conveying systems (elevators); and fire and building code systems (fire 

detection and suppression, and building accessibility). Montana’s 

inspections resulted in an FCI value for each school district based on 

assessments of all of the facilities in the school district. Montana’s FCI 

used a scale of 0 to 100 percent and the higher the percentage, the closer 

the cost of the repairs were to the cost of a new facility. Montana 

considers school facilities with FCIs from 0 to 9 percent to be in good 

condition, FCIs from 10 to 19 percent to be in fair condition, and FCIs of 

Page 10 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

20 percent and greater to be in poor condition. Facilities with FCIs greater 

than 50 percent are considered to be experiencing such levels of fatigue 

that the merits of reinvestment in the existing structure should be 

carefully considered. 

• New Mexico created a facility assessment program that required it to 

evaluate the capital needs of every school facility in the state, rank all 

789 public schools in terms of needed capital improvements, and prioritize 

funding on an annual basis for those public school facilities most in need 

of repair. This program enables it to optimize the allocation of limited 

resources. In 2003, New Mexico assessed all K-12 public school facilities 

and developed the New Mexico condition index (NMCI) that measures 

both the physical condition and the adequacy of a school facility against 

New Mexico’s adequacy standards. Facility assessments include 

evaluations of eight building systems, including site utilities; structural 

systems (foundations, exterior walls, doors, and roof); interior systems 

(walls, ceilings, and floors); mechanical and plumbing systems, electrical 

systems; building and fire code systems (accessibility and fire detection 

suppression); equipment (gym equipment and technology); and special 

fixtures (cabinets and chalk boards). The NMCI incorporates weighting 

factors for specific deficiencies, such as conditions that present health or 

safety threats, inadequate space, and inadequate equipment. In addition, 

New Mexico’s assessment process includes a life-cycle analysis that takes 

into consideration whether a building system is within or beyond its 

recommended life. New Mexico updates the facility condition data when it 

completes new assessments of facilities, receives new data from school 

construction applications, or receives information from the life-cycle 

analysis. Each year, New Mexico uses the NMCI to rank the schools from 

the highest score (indicating those most in need of repair or replacement) 

to the lowest score and typically provides funding for the 100 schools most 

in need of capital improvement. 

• Washington collects building condition evaluations from school districts 

that apply for a study and survey grant. This state program provides school 

districts with funds to complete a long-range planning document, which is 

a prerequisite for state school construction assistance and includes an 

independent evaluation of school facilities. Washington provided the 

evaluation information to us for the 118 school districts that have 

submitted building evaluations since 2003, including 9 evaluations from 

Indian Impact Aid school districts and 109 from other school districts, 

from a total of 295 school districts statewide. School districts may apply 

for a study and survey grant once every 6 years. As a part of the process to 

complete the building condition evaluation form, the building inspector 

scores the condition of various components of a building’s exterior system 

Page 11 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

(foundation, wall, and roof); interior system (floor, wall, and ceiling); 

mechanical system (electrical, plumbing, and HVAC); and safety and 

building code system (fire alarm and detection, and emergency lighting). 

Each building component is awarded points based on its assessed 

condition. For example, if the inspector determines the exterior walls of 

the facility to be in good condition, a total of 8 points can be awarded 

compared with a total of 2 points that can be awarded if the exterior doors 

and windows are determined to be in good condition. The component 

scores are summed to create the buildings’ evaluation score, which can 

range from 0 to 100 points. The building evaluation scores can provide 

relative information about the condition of different facilities, but they 

differ from FCI calculations because they do not include an estimate of the 

repair and replacement costs. According to state officials, the building 

evaluation scores are used in the process for prioritizing school districts 

for funding. The scores are not used to categorize school districts in terms 

of the condition of their facilities. However, the evaluations of several 

school districts in Washington conducted by one consultant included a 

scoring table that associated different building scores to different levels of 

condition. Based on this table, a score of 90 to 100 indicates good 

condition, a score of 60 to 89 indicates fair condition, a score of 30 to 

59 indicates poor condition, and a score of 0 to 29 indicates unsatisfactory 

condition. 

Montana, New Mexico, and Washington each measure facility condition 

differently, and, as a result, we are not able to make comparisons about 

school condition among the states. For example, Montana calculated FCIs 

on the basis of the condition of 11 building systems, while New Mexico 

calculated FCIs on the basis of 8 building systems. Washington’s school 

facility evaluations use a 0 to 100 point scale, rather than an FCI 

calculation. Since each state applied the same method for all schools 

within the state, we are able to compare districts within states. 

Data from 3 States 

Indicated Condition of 

School Facilities at Indian 

Impact Aid School 

Districts Ranged from 

Good to Poor 

Montana’s assessment data showed that most of its Indian Impact Aid 

school districts’ facilities were in good condition, although a larger 

proportion of other school districts—that is, those that do not receive 

Montana 

Page 12 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

Impact Aid for students residing on Indian lands—had facilities in good 

condition. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Condition of School Facilities in Montana’s Indian Impact Aid and Other School Districts 

Indian Impact Aid school districts (60 total) Other school districts (362 total)

7%

28%

65%

18%

79%

Good

(39 districts)

Good

(286 districts)

Fair

(17 districts)

Fair

(66 districts)

Poor

(4 districts)

3% Poor

(10 districts)

Source: GAO analysis of Montana data.

Note: The number of Indian Impact Aid school districts and other school districts is based on 2008 

data from the Department of Education, the most recent data available at the time of this analysis. 

Montana’s data indicated that most of the school facilities’ building 

systems were in good condition. For example, 75 to 100 percent of the 

Indian Impact Aid school districts had roof systems, HVAC systems, 

plumbing systems, building foundations, and floor systems that were in 

good condition. The data were similar for the other school districts. On the 

other hand, the assessment data indicated that about one-half of the Indian 

Impact Aid and other school districts had fire and building code systems 

and about one-quarter had electrical systems that were in poor condition. 

The biggest difference between the Indian Impact Aid and other school 

districts was the condition of their interior finishes, with respective rates 

of 50 percent and 78 percent that were in good condition, 30 percent and 

13 percent that were in fair condition, and 20 percent and 9 percent that 

were in poor condition. 

New Mexico uses its facility assessment information and the NMCI to rank 

its schools relative to their capital needs and does not define specific 

NMCI levels that would correlate to schools being considered in good, fair, 

or poor condition. According to a New Mexico official, excluding the 

New Mexico 

Page 13 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

equipment and special fixtures systems and the weighting factors from 

New Mexico’s assessment data would result in a more traditional FCI.15

After making these adjustments, the analysis of New Mexico’s data 

indicated that all of the Indian Impact Aid school districts had facilities 

that were in either good or fair condition. The data were similar for New 

Mexico’s other school districts with 84 percent having facilities that were 

in good or fair condition. None of the Indian Impact Aid and less than a 

fifth of the other school districts had facilities that were in poor condition. 

(See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Condition of School Facilities in New Mexico’s Indian Impact Aid and Other School Districts 

Indian Impact Aid school districts (19 total) Other school districts (70 total)

53% 48%

16%

Good

(9 districts)

Poor

(11 districts)

Fair

(10 districts)

Good

(27 districts)

Fair

(32 districts)

Source: GAO analysis of New Mexico data.

39%

46%

Note: The number of Indian Impact Aid school districts and other school districts is based on 2008 

data from the Department of Education, the most recent data available at the time of this analysis. 

Also, totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

According to New Mexico’s data, most Indian Impact Aid and other school 

districts had building systems that were in good to fair condition. The 

school districts’ structural systems were in the best shape overall— 

95 percent of the Indian Impact Aid and about 87 percent of the other 

school districts had structural systems that were in good condition. New 

Mexico’s data showed that at least one-half of the Indian Impact Aid 

school districts had electrical systems that were in good condition, while 

 

15Our analysis uses an FCI scale wherein an FCI below 10 percent indicates the facility is in 

good condition, an FCI that is 10 to 19 percent indicates the facility is in fair condition, and 

an FCI that is 20 percent and greater indicates a facility is in poor condition. 

Page 14 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

at least one-half of both types of school districts had building and fire code 

systems that were in good condition. Although about one-half of the Indian 

Impact Aid and other school districts had site utility systems that were in 

good condition, this was also the building category with the highest 

proportion of districts that were in the poor condition category. For the 

remaining two building systems, New Mexico’s data indicated that about 

one-quarter of the Indian Impact Aid and other school districts had 

mechanical and plumbing systems that were in good condition and onethird of the Indian Impact Aid and one-quarter of the other school districts 

had interior systems that were in good condition. 

Washington’s data were based on evaluations from 118 of 295 school 

districts, including 9 of 29 Indian Impact Aid school districts and 109 of 

266 other school districts.16 As we have previously discussed, Washington 

does not categorize school districts in terms of their condition, but one 

consultant has associated the building scores with different levels of 

condition. For our analysis, we used this consultant’s scoring table to 

categorize the school districts’ facilities as being in good, fair, or poor 

condition. Based on this scoring table, the state’s data showed that 

4 Indian Impact Aid school districts were in fair condition and 5 were in 

poor condition. The data indicated that none of the Indian Impact Aid 

districts were in good condition. The data showed that 2 percent (2) of the 

other 109 school districts were in good condition, 55 percent (60) were in 

fair condition, and 43 percent (47) were in poor condition.17

Washington 

Washington’s data indicated that none of the 9 Indian Impact Aid school 

districts and about 14 percent of the other school districts had building 

systems in good condition. Washington’s data showed 5 to 7 of the 

9 Indian Impact Aid school districts had exterior building systems, interior 

building systems, and safety and building code systems that were in fair 

condition and 6 districts had mechanical systems that were in poor 

condition. The data were less clear-cut for the 109 other school districts, 

although they showed that almost two-thirds (67) of these districts had 

 

16The number of Indian Impact Aid school districts is based on 2008 data from Education, 

the most recent data available at the time of this analysis. 

17To more easily describe the condition of facilities, we combined districts with poor and 

unsatisfactory scores into one category, which we titled “poor.” Of the 5 Indian Impact Aid 

districts, Washington’s data showed that 2 had schools that were unsatisfactory. Of the 

47 other school districts, the data showed that 20 districts had schools that were 

unsatisfactory. 

Page 15 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

mechanical systems that were in poor condition and almost three-fourths 

(81) had exterior systems that were in fair condition. 

School District Officials 

Identified Several Factors 

That Contribute to Facility 

Conditions, Including 

Fiscal Capacity, Age, and 

Location 

While localities often rely on issuing bonds to raise funds for school 

renovations and new construction, the officials at most of the school 

districts we visited commented that their restricted tax base impacts their 

ability to issue bonds. Officials in one New Mexico school district said that 

they were able to secure a limited level of bonding on the basis of 

expected Impact Aid funds. Most officials said that they are unable to 

issue bonds because so few property owners pay taxes, which is a source 

of revenue to repay the bonds. Some officials said they accumulate funds 

over time for a reserve to pay for emergency repairs and larger 

maintenance and major capital improvement projects. These officials said 

that Impact Aid is critical to their ability to accumulate such funds. 

According to officials in one Arizona school district, Impact Aid funds 

made it possible for the district to accumulate several million dollars that 

it plans to spend in 2010 on building improvements (e.g., upgrading 

windows) and digging a water well. At one school district in Montana, 

officials said that they maintain an emergency fund because without such 

a reserve, a major problem with a facility could cause a school to be 

closed. Additionally, several school district officials in Arizona and New 

Mexico said that they often need to replace roofs, but generally have to 

partially repair or patch them until sufficient funds are accumulated for a 

replacement. 

District officials told us that older schools, like any older buildings, are 

often expensive to maintain because they are less efficient and other 

problems are more likely to surface once a repair is started. At both school 

districts we visited in Montana, officials said that the districts’ schools are 

quite old, with sections in one district dating back to 1919 and the other 

dating back to 1930. School district officials said some buildings are still 

heated by boilers originally installed in the 1940s. Officials from one of the 

Montana school districts told us that they replaced the boiler at their high 

school 2 years ago after accumulating the funds necessary for the project 

over several years. This year, officials expect to replace the elementary 

school boiler—originally installed in 1942 (see fig. 3). According to district 

officials, the older boilers are inefficient and make it difficult to maintain a 

comfortable building temperature. Several school district officials in 

Arizona, Montana, and Washington also said that their older buildings have 

single pane windows, which make it difficult to maintain an adequate 

classroom temperature compared with more efficient double pane 

windows. Officials also said that the older buildings generally do not meet 

Page 16 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

and are not required to meet the current building codes, and attempts to 

retrofit buildings to make them more accessible are often difficult and 

expensive. 

Figure 3: Examples of Old and New School Heating Systems in One Montana School District 

Source: GAO.

Elementary school’s 1942 boiler High school’s recently installed heating system

A school’s remote location was also cited as a contributing factor to 

facility conditions. Several of the school districts we visited were located 

in remote areas, and one district spanned about 3,000 square miles. School 

district officials in New Mexico and Arizona said that because of their 

remote locations, quality services may be difficult to obtain and may cost 

more. School officials in these states said higher costs are often due to a 

lack of commercial builders in rural areas. For example, at one remote 

school district we visited in New Mexico, officials said the area lacks 

maintenance services for HVAC and quality roofing contractors. Officials 

said the HVAC system needs constant repairs, and repair services take 

longer and cost more when contractors must travel from urban to rural 

areas. According to officials from one New Mexico district, to minimize 

the number of trips and effectively respond to building repairs among 

schools that span 60 miles, maintenance personnel are required to check 

the online maintenance system at the school for any work orders that can 

Page 17 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

be completed while maintenance personnel are on location. State officials 

in New Mexico are also trying to understand whether relative remoteness 

was a factor in building two different schools for about 100 students that 

cost $3.5 million in one remote area of the state and $8 million in another 

remote area. The state has appointed a task force to address concerns that 

some remote school districts are not receiving the same quality of services 

as others from electricians, carpenters, and other contractors. 

The research studies we reviewed on the relationship between the 

condition of school facilities and student outcomes 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. 

Also, some researchers suggest that specific characteristics of facilities, 

such as lighting, may be directly associated with student outcomes. Other 

characteristics of facilities, such as the general condition of the buildings, 

may be indirectly associated with student outcomes through their effects 

on other factors. We identified and reviewed 24 studies that analyzed the 

relationship between facility conditions and student outcomes. A majority 

of these studies indicated that better school facilities were associated with 

better student outcomes—such as higher scores on achievement tests or 

higher student attendance rates.18 Most of the studies measured the extent 

to which better school facilities were associated with better outcomes 

after taking into account the impact of other factors that can affect student 

outcomes, such as poverty and other demographic characteristics.19

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 

 

18Of the 24 studies, 14 studies found correlations between school facility conditions and 

student outcomes; 9 studies found such correlations in some cases, but not in others, 

depending on the facility variables and outcome variables studied; and 1 study found no 

relationship after controlling for poverty status. In this case, researchers measured the 

extent of poverty as the percentage of students in each elementary school that was eligible 

for free or reduced price school lunch, a program funded through the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service. Generally, students at or below 130 percent of 

federal poverty guidelines are eligible for free lunch, and those between 130 percent and 

185 percent are eligible for reduced price lunch. We identify statistically significant 

associations as those for which there is less than a 5 percent chance that the differences 

observed could be accounted for by chance. 

19Methodologies such as randomized trials are often impractical, or even unethical, for 

studying educational outcomes because some students would have to be assigned to the 

control group and would not receive potentially useful educational goods or services. 

Nevertheless, randomized trials are considered to be the best way to test hypotheses about 

causal mechanisms and provide more certainty in determining treatment effects than quasiexperiments and other approximations of randomized trials. 

Page 18 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

However, none of these studies proves that better facilities caused better 

student outcomes. About one-half of the studies we reviewed examined 

broad measures, such as the general condition of the school buildings 

based on evaluations by facilities specialists or by teachers, or the 

suitability of school buildings—the extent to which district officials rated 

the facilities as being suitable for the grades being served. Based on these 

studies, it is unclear to what extent better facility conditions contribute to 

better student outcomes, or whether the associations identified may exist 

because other factors, such as the level of community commitment to 

education, contribute to both better facilities and better student outcomes, 

and none proved a causal relationship. The other studies focused on 

specific aspects of facilities, such as heating, air conditioning, ventilation, 

or lighting. None of the studies we examined was able to conclusively 

determine how much school facility conditions contribute to student 

outcomes relative to other factors, such as the educational achievement of 

students’ parents or teachers’ qualifications. 

Studies of Broad School 

Facilities Measures 

Of the studies that focused on broad measures, such as measures of 

physical conditions or the suitability of school facilities, about one-half 

(7 of 13) found that schools with better facilities generally had better 

student outcomes. These included cases in which researchers noted 

possible direct connections between better facilities and student outcomes 

and cases in which they noted indirect connections, with better facilities 

contributing to conditions that in turn contribute to better student 

outcomes. Some studies indicated associations between facilities and 

student outcomes with some but not all measures of student outcomes.20

One of the studies examining all elementary and secondary schools in the 

District of Columbia estimated that students attending schools in fair 

condition had average achievement test scores 5.45 points higher on a 0 to 

100 point scale than those attending schools in poor condition.21 This was 

the case after taking into account other factors that may have an influence 

on student achievement, such as race and income. Similarly, a study in the 

Los Angeles Unified School District found that in schools with facilities 

 

20Outcomes identified in the studies we reviewed included achievement test scores, speed 

and error rates when performing specific tasks, student attendance rates, drop-out rates, 

and incidence rates of student misbehavior. 

21Maureen M. Berner, “Building Conditions, Parental Involvement, and Student 

Achievement in the District of Columbia Public School System,” Urban Education 28(1) 

(April 1993), 6-29. 

Page 19 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

that met health and safety compliance requirements, the schools’ average 

student California Academic Performance Index scores were likely to be 

higher.22 Compared with schools in the lowest compliance category, 

schools in the highest compliance category had an estimated average 

score that was 36 points higher on the composite index, with scores 

ranging from 200 to 1,000. This was the result after taking into account 

factors, such as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced 

price school lunch and the percentage of students who were black or 

Hispanic. This study found that although the school facilities that were in 

better condition were associated with better student achievement, some of 

the other important factors, such as poverty, were more strongly 

associated with achievement. For example, holding all else constant, 

schools with the lowest percentage of students who were eligible for free 

or reduced price lunch were expected to have average achievement scores 

113 points higher on the 200 to 1,000 point scale than schools in which all 

students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch—more than three 

times the estimated difference between school facilities in the worst and 

the best compliance categories. 

One study used a potentially more rigorous methodology by comparing 

achievement test scores at schools before and after renovation of 3 of the 

district’s 21 elementary schools.23 The study showed that math, but not 

reading test scores, improved as the proportion of students in recently 

renovated schools increased. The researcher concluded that a larger 

sample would be needed to provide better evidence of a connection 

between school facilities and student achievement. 

Another study found no association between better school facilities in 

Wyoming and student achievement. The study found that before and after 

taking into account the income status of students’ families, there was no 

statistically significant association between schools in better condition 

 

22Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider, and Yi Shang, “LAUSD School Facilities and Academic 

Performance,” (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

See http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/LAUSD%20Report.pdf (last accessed on Dec. 20, 

2008). 

23Lorraine E. Maxwell, “School Building Renovation and Student Performance: One 

District’s Experience,” (Scottsdale, Ariz.: Council of Educational Facility Planners 

International, 1999). 

Page 20 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

and schools with higher average achievement.24 Similarly, no statistically 

significant association was found between student achievement and the 

suitability of the school facilities. 

School district officials at all of the eight Indian Impact Aid school districts 

we visited said that in their experience, better school facilities are 

associated with better student outcomes, though they also often cited 

other factors that some believed had more influence, such as whether 

students’ families placed a high value on education. Several district 

officials noted that many of their students are from low-income families 

that may not place an emphasis on education. Although officials in several 

districts we visited said their students are affected by the condition of 

school facilities just as other students are affected, other officials 

remarked that their students, who often come from homes in poor 

condition, may be especially affected by a school’s good condition because 

it provides a more comfortable environment. 

Some studies indicate that better facilities can contribute to student 

outcomes indirectly—through their effects on other factors—and school 

officials with whom we spoke believed this was true in their districts. For 

example, a study of Virginia middle schools indicated that although better 

student achievement was associated with the quality of school facilities, 

better student achievement was more highly associated with a variable 

identified as “school climate,” which measures attitudes in the school 

community that support learning, such as students’ respect for others who 

get good grades and teachers’ commitment to helping students.25 The 

authors concluded that rather than having a direct effect on student 

achievement, better school facilities can indirectly influence student 

achievement by contributing to a good school climate for learning. School 

officials we interviewed noted that good facilities contribute to students’ 

pride in their school. One official noted that good school facilities send a 

message to students that the community values education, which can 

result in better student outcomes. Similarly, a study of New York City 

elementary schools found that better school building conditions were 

 

24Lawrence O. Picus, Scott F. Marion, Naomi Calvo, and William J. Glenn, “Understanding 

the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: 

Evidence from Wyoming,” Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3) (2005), 71-95. 

25Cynthia Uline and Megan Tschannen-Moran, “The walls speak: the Interplay of Quality 

Facilities, School Climate, and Student Achievement,” Journal of Educational 

Administration 46(1) (2008), 55-73. 

Page 21 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

associated with better student attendance rates, and that these in turn 

were associated with better English and math achievement.26

Several school officials also noted the importance of good school facilities 

for attracting and retaining good teachers who in turn can improve student 

achievement. Research points to teacher quality as an important schoollevel factor that influences student learning.27 The association between 

good school facilities and teacher retention was the focus of one study 

that identified several factors associated with teachers’ plans to remain 

another year in their current school, including better school facility 

conditions.28 This study found an association between the school facility 

and teacher retention even after taking into account several other factors, 

including the teachers’ ages, their tenure at the school, and their 

satisfaction with pay and the community. 

Studies of Specific 

Characteristics of School 

Facilities 

Studies we reviewed that focused on the effect of specific characteristics 

of the school facility found that some factors, such as lighting, are directly 

associated with better outcomes. Rather than simply examining whether 

students have enough light to be able to see classroom materials, some 

studies have examined the extent to which classrooms provide daylight or 

light that simulates daylight. For example, a study of 24 elementary 

schools in Georgia found that third-grade students in classrooms with 

more daylight had higher average achievement test scores after taking into 

account the free or reduced price lunch variable and other aspects of the 

school facility design. Including daylight in the analysis explained an 

additional 2.5 percent of the variation in average test scores among the 

schools.29 Similarly, a study of 102 schools in California, Colorado, and 

 

26Valkiria Durán-Narucki, “School Building Condition, School Attendance, and Academic 

Achievement in New York City Public Schools: A Mediation Model,” Journal of 

Environmental Psychology 28 (2008), 278-286. 

27For a discussion of efforts to improve teacher quality, see GAO, Teacher Quality: 

Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education Programs Could Enhance State 

Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality, GAO-09-593 (Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009); and 

Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts, 

GAO-07-861T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007). 

28Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider, and Yi Shang, “The Effects of School Facility Quality on 

Teacher Retention in Urban School Districts,” National Clearinghouse for Educational 

Facilities, www.ncef.org (February 2004). 

29C. Kenneth Tanner, “Explaining Relationships among Student Outcomes and the School’s 

Physical Environment,” Journal of Advanced Academics 19(3) (Spring 2008), 444-471. 

Page 22 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

Washington found that students in the classrooms with the most daylight 

increased their test scores overall about 21 percent more than those 

students in rooms with the least amount of daylight after taking into 

account additional information, including teacher characteristics and 

grade levels. A follow-up study taking into account additional information, 

including teacher characteristics and grade levels confirmed these 

findings, showing that students in the classrooms with the most daylight 

increased their test scores overall about 21 percent.30 Another study found 

that classrooms with full-spectrum fluorescent light bulbs, which simulate 

daylight, were associated with faster academic progress compared with 

classrooms using high-pressure sodium vapor bulbs, which do not 

simulate daylight as well.31 Average test scores in classrooms with fullspectrum bulbs indicated that students increased their level of academic 

achievement by about 2 grade levels over the 2-year study period, 

compared with 1.6 years for students in classrooms with the high-pressure 

sodium vapor bulbs. 

Few of the school administrators with whom we spoke cited lighting as a 

factor related to student outcomes, although we found that the extent to 

which students were exposed to natural light varied in the schools we 

visited. While many schools had classrooms with windows that let in light, 

the level of natural light varied considerably. One school had installed 

dividing walls to create smaller classrooms out of large spaces, and some 

of the resulting classrooms had no natural light. In at least one school we 

visited in Washington, renovations included upgrading lighting to provide 

full-spectrum light and reduce energy use. 

Studies examining the quality of air in classrooms found associations 

between better air quality and better health or lower absenteeism. A study 

of schools in Finland found that in an elementary school with moisture or 

mold problems, there was a higher occurrence of respiratory infections, 

repeated wheezing and prolonged coughing, and emergency room visits 

 

30Lisa Heschong, Ihab Elzeyadi, and Carey Knecht, “Re-Analysis Report: Daylighting in 

Schools, Additional Analysis,” (Fair Oaks, Calif.: Heschong Mahone Group, Feb. 14, 2002). 

This study assessed changes in scores from achievement tests taken in the fall and spring 

in one district and compared schools’ average test scores at the end of the school year with 

district average test scores. 

31Warren E. Hathaway, “Effects of School Lighting on Physical Development and School 

Performance,” Journal of Educational Research 88(4) (March-April 1995), 228-242. 

Page 23 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

than in other schools.32 Another study of schools in Finland had similar 

results and showed that although background concentrations of fungi in 

wooden buildings were significantly higher than in concrete or brick 

buildings, moisture damage increased fungal concentrations significantly 

in the concrete or brick buildings, but not in wooden school buildings. 

Moisture damage increased the likelihood that students would have 

respiratory symptoms in schools constructed of concrete or bricks.33

Another Swedish study found that two day-care centers that installed 

electrostatic air cleaning systems reduced the concentrations of fine 

particles in the air, and absenteeism fell by 55 percent at the larger center 

and by a smaller proportion at the smaller center.34 Absenteeism almost 

returned to the original level after the system at the larger center was 

turned off. Another study found that new ventilation systems in Swedish 

schools reduced the prevalence of asthmatic symptoms in classrooms 

compared with those without the new systems.35 Studies in Danish 

elementary school classrooms found that ventilation systems that drew in 

larger volumes of outdoor air were associated on average with an 8 

percent increase in the speed at which students worked.36 Air quality was a 

concern in two of the districts we visited, such as at a middle school we 

visited in Washington where the main hallway had no ventilation or air 

circulation and the stale air had a noticeable odor. School administrators 

cited the poor air quality as a concern they felt was a high priority to 

address. Another school in the same district faced complaints about air 

 

32Taina Taskinen, A. Hyvärinen, T. Meklin, T. Husman, A. Nevalainen, and M. Korppi, 

“Asthma and Respiratory Infections in School Children with Special Reference to Moisture 

and Mold Problems in the School,” Acta Paediatrica 88(12) (1999), 1373-1379. 

33Teija Meklin, T. Husman, A. Vepsäläinen, M. Vahteristo, J. Koivisto, J. Halla-Aho, A. 

Hyvärinen, D. Moschandreas, and A. Nevalainen, “Indoor Air Microbes and Respiratory 

Symptoms of Children in Moisture Damaged and Reference Schools,” Indoor Air 12(3) 

(2002), 175-183. 

34Karl G. Rosén and George Richardson, “Would Removing Indoor Air Particulates in 

Children’s Environments Reduce Rate of Absenteeism—A hypothesis” The Science of the 

Total Environment 234 (1999), 87-93. The decline in attendance at the smaller center was 

not statistically significant. 

35Greta Smedje and Dan Norbäck, “New Ventilation Systems at Select Schools in Sweden—

Effects on Asthma and Exposure,” Archives of Environmental Health 55(1) 

(January/February 2000), 18-25. 

36Pawel Wargocki and David P. Wyon, “Research Report on Effects of HVAC on Student 

Performance,” ASHRAE Journal 48(10) (October 2006), 22-28 (American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.) The study compared results 

from ventilation systems providing 3.0 and 9.5 liters per second, per person. Error rates 

declined significantly for one numerical task, but not for other tasks. 

Page 24 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

quality, and administrators speculated that the air quality was adversely 

affected by old carpeting. 

One study considered the effects of temperature control in elementary 

schools in Denmark and found an association between comfortable 

temperatures and student performance. The study found that reducing 

classroom temperatures from 77 degrees Fahrenheit was associated with 

improved speed in math and language tests. The study indicated that a 1.8 

degree Fahrenheit drop in temperature was associated with about a 4 

percent increase in the speed at which students worked. The number of 

errors students made decreased when performing some tasks, but not 

others. School officials in several districts we visited cited difficulties in 

maintaining comfortable temperatures in classrooms and concurred that 

when students are too cold or too warm, it is difficult for them to 

concentrate on their studies. 

We provided a draft of the report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. We received technical clarifications from 

Education’s Impact Aid Program within the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 25 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

Cornelia Ashby on (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov; or Terrell Dorn on 

(202) 512-6923 or dornt@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

rity Issues 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Secu

Terrell G. Dorn 

Page 26 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-10-32 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To determine what information is available about the physical condition of 

school facilities in Indian Impact Aid school districts and what is known 

about how the condition of school facilities affects student outcomes, we 

interviewed officials from state and federal agencies, and associations and 

reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. This included interviews 

with officials from the Department of Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES); state education agencies; school districts; 

and education associations, including the National Indian Impacted 

Schools Association, the National Association of Federally Impacted 

Schools, National Council for Impacted Schools, National Indian 

Education Association, as well as state Indian education officials in 

Washington and Montana. We conducted a literature search to identify 

research studies and analyzed selected studies. We also visited school 

districts in four states—Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington. 

To determine what information is available about the physical condition of 

school facilities in Indian Impact Aid school districts, we contacted 

officials from Education’s Impact Aid Office, NCES, and Indian Impact Aid 

associations for independent national data on school condition. We 

decided to accept only assessment data that were prepared by an 

independent party with no apparent vested interest in the results of the 

assessment. We determined that Education collects surveys about school 

condition from school districts that received an Impact Aid construction 

formula grant, but we determined that the survey data were of limited use 

because they were not based on independent assessments and did not 

cover all Indian Impact Aid schools. We determined that although NCES 

published the results of its study of a nationally representative sample of 

school districts in which it asked school principals about the condition of 

their schools, we could not use these data because we are not able to 

obtain statistically meaningful responses for Indian Impact Aid schools 

due to sample size, and NCES did not independently verify the survey 

responses that were provided by school principals. We found that national 

associations like the National Indian Impacted Schools Association and 

the National Council for Impacted Schools do not document the condition 

of school facilities in Indian Impact Aid school districts. 

Because we could not identify a source for nationwide data, we sought 

state-level data. Education provided us with the list of states with school 

districts that received fiscal year 2008 Impact Aid funds for students living 

on Indian lands. From this list of 27 states, we identified 11 states with a 

large number of Indian Impact Aid districts (at least 15 districts) and 

contacted their state education officials to determine whether they had 

independent assessment data about the physical condition of public 

 School Facilities 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

school facilities. We determined that four states—Arizona, Montana, New 

Mexico, and Washington—had assessment data for some or all of their 

public schools. 

We obtained and analyzed these data from the four states, which did not 

maintain the data in similar fashions. Montana and its contractor provided 

us with a copy of its complete school building and system-level analyses of 

repair and replacement costs, which we used to generate our school 

district-level analysis. New Mexico provided us with school district-level 

data of building system repair and replacement costs. Arizona collected 

only deficiency information at the school building-level, which we used to 

create our district-level information for site selection. Washington 

maintained hard copies of the building-level evaluation reports, which we 

keypunched to create raw data for district-level files. On the basis of our 

analysis, we were able to describe the condition of schools in Indian 

Impact Aid districts in three of the four states. We determined that these 

data were sufficiently reliable for the analysis used in this report. We were 

not able to use Arizona’s data because, although it describes a variety of 

information, including the number, type, and size of buildings and whether 

the school site and building systems meet the state’s adequacy standards, 

the data do not determine whether the school facilities are in good, fair, or 

poor condition. For the other three states, we combined the facilities data 

with Education’s Common Core of Data to describe the characteristics of 

the school districts, which we used for selecting school districts for site 

visits. 

Because each state’s assessment program is unique, it does not allow for 

comparisons among states. For example, while both Montana and New 

Mexico create a facility condition index that is based on the ratio of 

renewal cost to replacement cost, New Mexico weights deficiencies in a 

manner consistent with its own state priorities, (e.g., classroom space); 

whereas, Montana does not rely on any explicit weighting scheme. In 

addition, each state bundled its building system groups differently, 

consistent with state priorities with the respective indexes for each bundle 

being incorporated into the calculation of the overall facility condition 

index. In contrast, the assessment program in Washington does not 

calculate a facility condition index. Only districts seeking funds for 

planning grants or construction participate in the Washington assessment 

program, unlike in Montana and New Mexico where all school districts 

were assessed. Because of these differences, facility condition measures 

are not strictly comparable across states. While comparison among states 

would not be valid to evaluate the condition of schools in Indian Impact 

Aid districts, the condition of school facilities can safely be compared 

Page 28 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

within each state. This comparison allows for an assessment of the quality 

of school condition in Indian Impact Aid districts relative to that of other 

districts in the same state. 

In Washington, only districts applying for a study and survey grant submit 

documentation of the condition of their school facilities. The districts that 

do participate in the study and survey grant program are required to 

provide matching funds, which in turn may indicate the ability to obtain 

school board or community approval to levy a bond. Of 29 Indian Impact 

Aid school districts, 9 have submitted building evaluation reports since 

2003. Similarly, 109 of 266 other school districts statewide have completed 

and submitted an evaluation report for their district. Because less than 

one-half of the districts submitted evaluation data and the districts that did 

are self-selected, it is not known whether the assessed districts differ 

systematically from the nonassessed group. In addition, whether and how 

systematic differences between the assessed and nonassessed groups 

occur could be different for Indian Impact Aid districts and other districts 

in Washington. Differences in facility condition between Indian Impact Aid 

districts and other districts in Washington could be attributable to these 

underlying selection-related differences and not to any real differences 

between the two populations of school districts in Washington. 

We selected two school districts in each of the four states to visit to obtain 

district officials’ perspectives on factors that affect facility maintenance 

and to observe their facilities. We selected districts that provided variety 

on the basis of selection criteria, such as information about the relative 

condition of the school districts’ facilities, the proportion of the school 

district’s revenue composed of Impact Aid, proportion of students who are 

Indians, and number of students enrolled. (See table 2.) 

Page 29 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 2: Characteristics of Site Visit School Districts 

State School district 

State facility 

score

Impact Aid as a 

percentage of 

revenue 2005-06

Indians as a 

percentage of all 

students in 2006 

Student average 

daily attendance in 

2007 

Arizona Indian Oasis-Baboquivari a 28% 99% 1,042

Sanders a 37 98 934

Montana Dixon 8b19 50 84

St. Ignatius 20b16 55 449

New Mexico Central Consolidated 15b31 89 6,343

Zuni 6b38 99 1,382

Washington Mt. Adams 51c27 65 951

Wapato 72c7 26 3,207

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education and state data. 

a

Arizona did not identify a score. Selection was based on lists of deficiencies in the state’s database, 

comments from state facility assessors, and other information. 

b

For Montana and New Mexico, a lower score indicates school facilities are in better condition. 

c

For Washington, a higher score indicates school facilities are in better condition. 

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). 

Page 30 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 3: Number of Selected Research Studies on Selected Facility and Student Outcome Variables 

Student outcome variables 

Facility variable 

Achievement test 

scores

Health and 

well-being

Student 

attendance and 

dropout rates

Student 

behavior

General condition or suitability 12 0 2 0

Lighting 3 2 3 1

Air quality, ventilation, and climate control 1 4 1 0

Crowding 2 0 1 0

Special equipment 1 0 0 0

Acoustics 1 0 0 1

Other 3 0 0 0

Source: GAO analysis of selected studies. 

Note: A single study may have included more than one facility variable or more than one student 

outcome variable. For additional information about selected results of these studies, see appendix III. 

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 

Page 31 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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. 

Page 32 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix II: List of School Districts That 

Received Indian Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 

2009 

Table 4 contains a list of the 25 states with public school districts that had 

received Indian Impact Aid for fiscal year 2009, as of August 2009. We use 

the term Indian Impact Aid to refer to school districts that qualify to 

receive Impact Aid basic support funding because they meet the minimum 

eligibility criteria, namely they have at least 400 students in average daily 

attendance who are federally connected, in this case who reside on Indian 

lands, or such students comprise at least 3 percent of the total number of 

students in the district. The table also lists for each district the total 

number of students living on Indian lands in average daily attendance for 

the previous school year, this number as a percentage of the total number 

of students in average daily attendance, and the amount of Impact Aid 

basic support payments each district received for students residing on 

Indian lands under section 8003(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. These amounts do not include basic 

support payments for other students with connections to other federal 

lands, children with disabilities, or construction grants under section 8007. 

Table 4: States with School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands, Fiscal Year 2009 (as of 

August 2009) 

State 

Indian Impact Aid 

school districtsa

Students living on 

Indian landsb

Percentage of all students 

living on Indian landsc

Basic support 

paymentsd

Alaska 31 11,746 52% $83,166,785 

Arizona 63 29,772 15 149,112,370 

California 39 4,947 11 13,878,219 

Colorado 2 597 16 1,614,485 

Idaho 5 991 17 3,683,788 

Iowa 1 186 13 503,421 

Kansas 2 264 19 880,380 

Maine 3 188 98 1,311,219 

Massachusetts 1 13 4 6,458 

Michigan 12 980 13 3,787,902 

Minnesota 21 3,564 24 15,899,283 

Montana 60 7,344 52 38,805,035 

Nebraska 5 1,020 73 6,938,529 

Nevada 6 1,074 1 2,126,010 

New Mexico 19 18,950 32 96,948,176 

North Carolina 4 683 10 1,630,249 

North Dakota 15 2,274 36 11,496,248 

Oklahoma 195 10,053 9 27,027,156 

Oregon 4 977 14 2,566,981 

Appendix II: List of School Districts That 

Received Indian Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 

2009 

Page 33 GAO-10-32 School Facilities 
Appendix II: List of School Districts That 

Received Indian Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 

2009 

State 

Indian Impact Aid 

school districtsa

Students living on 

Indian landsb

Percentage of all students 

living on Indian landsc

Basic support 

paymentsd

South Dakota 26 5,730 48 33,141,042

Texas 1 115 24 336,410

Utah 4 2,011 16 7,759,813

Washington 28 5,501 13 18,804,996

Wisconsin 18 3,235 16 11,962,457

Wyoming 4 1,383 75 9,945,109

Total 569 113,599 17% $543,332,521

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data. 

Note: These figures reflect payments to date on fiscal year 2009 basic support payments as of 

August 2009. At that time, with the eligibility of 31 applicants undecided, 92 percent of the 

approximately $1.1 billion of appropriations for basic support payments had been paid. Education 

makes final payments of the remaining funds when final decisions are reached on all applications, 

which Impact Aid Office staff indicated typically occurs about 2 years after the appropriation year. 

a

This is a count, as of August 2009, of the school districts in each state that Education found to be 

eligible for fiscal year 2009 Impact Aid basic support payments because they have students living on 

Indian lands. 

b

This is the average daily attendance count of students living on Indian lands in the districts indicated. 

These counts come from the school year 2 years prior to the year the appropriation is available. For 

example, fiscal year 2009 basic support payments are based on student counts during the 2007-2008 

school year. 

c

This is the average daily attendance count of students living on Indian lands as a percentage of the 

average daily attendance count of all students in the indicated districts. 

d

This is the total amount of Impact Aid basic support payments that the districts had received for 

students living on Indian lands as of August 2009. Overall, as of August 2009, 92 percent of 

appropriated basic support payments of all kinds for fiscal year 2009 had been disbursed. 

Page 34 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

Table 5 provides summary information about selected studies on broad 

measures of school facilities and student achievement. 

Table 5: Examples of Studies on Broad Measures of School Facilities and Student Achievement 

Author and year 

School facility 

variable 

Student achievement 

variable Selected findings 

Maureen M. Berner 1993a Condition of school 

building, excellent to 

poor 

Comprehensive Tests of 

Basic Skills score 

A school in fair condition could be expected to 

have average achievement test scores 5.45 points 

higher than a school in poor condition, on a scale 

of 0 to 100. 

Jack Buckley and others 

2004b

Overall building 

compliance level with 

health and safety 

standards 

California state 

achievement tests 

Schools in the best condition compared with those 

in the worst condition had an estimated 36-point 

higher average composite score on student 

achievement tests with a 200 to 1,000 point scale. 

Valkiria Durán-Narucki 2008cCondition of 

elementary school 

buildings based on 

independent consultant 

assessments 

New York State and City 

mathematics and English 

achievement test results 

Better school building conditions were associated 

with better student attendance rates, and these in 

turn were associated with better English and 

mathematics achievement. 

Morgan Lewis 2001dAssessments of school 

condition by district 

staff and staff from the 

program architect 

Wisconsin Student 

Assessment System test 

scores 

Schools with better building conditions generally 

had better average achievement test results for 

each of four tests in 3 years, but the association 

was statistically significant in only 11 of 36 tests 

after taking other factors into account (with a onetailed test of significance.) These 11 tests were for 

1996 and 1997. None of the tests for 1998 were 

statistically significant. 

Lorraine E. Maxwell 1999e Whether schools had 

recent renovation 

projects 

New York Pupil Evaluation 

Program reading and 

math scores 

Schools with recent renovations generally had 

better average math achievement test scores, but 

results showed no association with reading 

achievement scores. 

Lawrence O. Picus and 

others 2005f

Building quality scores 

by a consulting firm 

Wyoming Comprehensive 

Assessment System 

scores 

Facility conditions were not associated with better 

or worse achievement test scores after taking into 

account the percentage of students eligible for 

free or reduced price school lunch in each school. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers 

2003g

 

Amount of capital 

expenditures to 

improve the suitability 

of the facilities 

The percentage of 

students meeting reading, 

writing, math, and science 

standards in the United 

Kingdom 

Schools with additional capital investment in 

facilities generally had better pupil performance, 

particularly for community primary schools and for 

investment in science laboratories and 

technology. 

Mark Schneider 2002hTeachers’ survey 

response grading the 

condition of schools’

facilities 

Stanford Achievement 

Test in District of 

Columbia schools and 

Iowa Test of Basic Skills in 

Chicago schools 

Schools with facilities in the worst condition had 

lower percentages of students performing in the 

two highest achievement categories—an 

estimated 3 percent fewer compared with school 

facilities in the best condition in the District of 

Columbia, and 3 to 4 percent fewer in Chicago. 

Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

Page 35 GAO-10-32 School Facilities 
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

Author and year 

School facility 

variable 

Student achievement 

variable Selected findings 

Kenneth Stevenson 2001i

 Principals’ perceptions 

of school condition 

SAT and South Carolina 

Palmetto Achievement 

Challenge Test scores 

School facility conditions in better condition 

generally had higher average achievement test 

scores in some, but not all instances studied. After 

taking into account the percentage of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, better 

facilities were associated with better 7th and 8th 

grade reading and 6th and 7th grade math test 

scores, but not for any elementary grade test 

scores. 

Cynthia Uline and Megan 

Tschannen-Moran 2008j

Teachers’ perceptions 

of the quality of school 

facilities 

Factor based on two 

Virginia standards of 

learning test scores 

Schools with better quality facilities generally had 

better test scores, but not after taking into account 

school attitudes, such as whether students admire 

others who get good grades and whether teachers 

are committed to students’ education. The authors 

concluded that better quality facilities affect 

achievement indirectly—through their effect on 

school attitudes. 

George A. Waller 1998kState average 

measures of school 

facility conditions from 

a 1996 GAO survey of 

a sample of schools 

concerning school 

conditions in three 

categories: technology, 

environmental 

conditions, and 

building structures 

Factor based on state 

average SAT and ACT 

scores 

School facilities with better environmental 

conditions and technology generally had higher 

average achievement test scores. The adequacy 

of building structures was not associated with 

higher test scores. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected studies. 

a

Maureen M. Berner, “Building Conditions, Parental Involvement, and Student Achievement in the 

District of Columbia Public School System,” Urban Education 28(1) (April 1993), 6-29. 

b

Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider, and Yi Shang, “LAUSD School Facilities and Academic 

Performance,” (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

c

Valkiria Durán-Narucki, “School Building Condition, School Attendance, and Academic Achievement 

in New York City Public Schools: A Mediation Model,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 

(2008), 278-286. 

d

Moran Lewis, “Facility Conditions and Student Test Performance in the Milwaukee Public Schools,” 

(Scottsdale, Arizona: Council of Educational Facility Planners, International, 2001). See 

http://www.cefpi.org/issuetraks.html (last accessed on Sept. 29, 2008). 

e

Lorraine E. Maxwell, “School Building Renovation and Student Performance: One District’s 

Experience” Council of Educational Facility Planners International (Scottsdale, Ariz.: 1999). 

f

Lawrence O. Picus, Scott F. Marion, Naomi Calvo, and William J. Glenn, “Understanding the 

Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence from 

Wyoming,” Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3) (2005), 71-95. 

g

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Department for Education and Skills, “Building Better Performance: An 

Empirical Assessment of the Learning and Other Impacts of Schools Capital Investment,” Research 

Report RR407 (Nottingham: DfES Publications, 2003). 

Page 36 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

h

Mark Schneider, “Public School Facilities and Teaching: Washington, DC and Chicago,” Twenty-First 

Century School Fund (Washington, D.C.: 2002). 

i

Kenneth R. Stevenson, “The Relationship of School Facilities Conditions to Selected Student 

Academic Outcomes: A Study of South Carolina Public Schools,” University of South Carolina, 

College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policies (2001). 

j

Cynthia Uline and Megan Tschannen-Moran, “The Walls Speak: the Interplay of Quality Facilities, 

School Climate, and Student Achievement,” Journal of Educational Administration 46(1) (2008), 

55-73. 

k

George A. Waller, “For Want of a Modem and a Comfortable Chair: A Research Note,” American 

Journal of Political Science 42(2) (April 1998), 705-708. 

Table 6 provides summary information concerning other studies on school 

facilities and student outcomes—including those on specific school 

facility characteristics and various student outcomes, including 

achievement, attendance, and behavior and health. 

Table 6: Examples of Other Studies on School Facilities and Student Outcomes. 

Author and year 

School facility 

variable(s) 

Student outcome 

variable Selected findings 

David Branham 2004a Presence of 

structural problems 

in school facility and 

temporary buildings 

Student attendance 

and dropout rates 

A secondary school with 1,000 students could expect 

10 to 13 more dropouts a year and fewer students in 

attendance if the school had structural problems. The 

use of temporary buildings was also associated with 

lower attendance rates. 

Warren E. Hathaway 1995bUse of four different 

types of light fixtures 

in school classrooms

A comparison of 

scores on Canadian 

Test of Basic Skills 

taken in 1987 and 

1989, attendance 

rates, measures of 

physical 

development and 

dental health 

Attendance, achievement, health, and development 

measures were better in schools with full-spectrum 

lights compared with those in schools with highpressure sodium vapor lights. 

Lisa Heschong and others 

2002c

Researchers’

classification of the 

amount of daylight in 

the classroom 

Student attendance 

rates in each school 

district; Iowa Test of 

Basic Skills in 

Seattle, Washington; 

and other 

standardized tests in 

Fort Collins, 

Colorado, and 

Capistrano, 

California 

In each of the three school districts, the availability of 

more daylight was associated with higher achievement. 

After taking into account additional factors, such as 

teacher characteristics, more daylight continued to be 

associated with higher achievement. The amount of 

daylight was not associated with attendance rates. 

Page 37 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

Author and year 

School facility 

variable(s) 

Student outcome 

variable Selected findings 

Rikard Küller and Carin 

Lindsten 1992d

Amount of natural 

daylight and 

fluorescent light in 

classrooms 

Student attendance, 

sociability, and sick 

leave use 

Classrooms that lacked natural or simulated daylight 

had marked delays in rise of a natural hormone, 

cortisol. The ability to concentrate was higher in the 

classrooms with overhead daylight and artificial warm 

white tube lighting. Sociability was higher with windows 

or fluorescent daylight tubes. 

Lorraine E. Maxwell and Gary 

W. Evans 2000e

 The installation of 

sound absorbent 

panels in classroom 

ceilings to reduce 

noise levels 

Tests of preschool 

children’s number 

and letter 

recognition, lettersound 

correspondence, and 

rhyming skills; and 

teachers’ evaluations 

of children’s 

language skills 

before and after 

installation of sound 

absorbent panels 

Scores were higher after installation of sound 

absorbent panels for (1) recognition of numbers, 

letters, and simple words and (2) teachers’ evaluation 

of children’s language skills. Differences were not 

statistically significant for rhyming or letter-sound 

correspondence. 

Teija Meklin and others 2002fPresence of moisture 

problems in school 

buildings and levels 

of airborne microbes 

Respiratory health 

survey responses 

Children in schools with moisture problems reported 

respiratory symptoms more often than in schools 

without such problems. This was also the case among 

buildings with concrete or brick construction, but the 

association was not statistically significant among 

schools with wood construction. 

Douglas E. Mitchell and Ross 

E. Mitchell 1999g

Reductions in class 

size from a typical 28 

to 32 to a maximum 

of 20 students in 

kindergarten through 

third-grade 

classrooms 

Reading, math, and 

language 

achievement test 

scores 

Smaller class sizes were associated with higher test 

scores for reading, math, and language. The effects 

were small after taking into account student 

demographics, including gender, income, ethnicity, 

language used at home. 

Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz and 

Lilian Marti 1995h

Overcrowding in 

schools measured as 

the number of 

students compared 

with the schools 

design capacity 

Degrees of Reading 

Power test scores 

and New York Pupil 

Evaluation Program 

Test in mathematics 

Among schools with high proportions of poor students, 

overcrowding was associated with lower student 

achievement. Among schools with lower proportions of 

poor students, overcrowding was associated with 

higher achievement, as schools with high achievement 

attract more students. 

Karl G. Rosén and George 

Richardson 1999i

Indoor air quality as 

measured by levels 

of airborne particles 

in schools with and 

without electrostatic 

air cleaning systems 

in operation 

Student attendance 

rates 

When the electrostatic air cleaning systems were in 

operation, average attendance rates rose, although 

this was not statistically significant at the smaller daycare center. 

Greta Smedje and Dan 

Norbäck 2000j

Ventilation measured 

as the flow of outside 

air into the school 

buildings 

Responses to 

student surveys 

concerning asthmatic 

symptoms 

Lower incidence of any asthmatic symptoms was 

associated with improved ventilation. 

Page 38 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

Author and year 

School facility 

variable(s) 

Student outcome 

variable Selected findings 

C. Kenneth Tanner 2008k

School building 

design 

characteristics, 

including the 

availability of space 

to accommodate 

students’ movement 

and circulation, 

meeting in large 

groups, day lighting 

and views, and 

space of instructional 

neighborhoods 

Iowa Test of Basic 

Skills 

Schools designed to accommodate students’

movement and circulation were more likely to have 

higher student achievement. This was also true for the 

presence of the other design characteristics, but these 

accounted for less of the variation in achievement (2 

percent compared with 7 percent for designs 

accommodating movement and circulation). 

Taina Taskinen and others 

1999l

The presence of 

moisture problems in 

elementary schools 

and indoor air quality

Parents’ responses 

to a survey 

concerning 

respiratory 

symptoms 

In the school with moisture problems, parents noted 

higher incidence of children with repeated wheezing 

and prolonged coughing and incidence of respiratory 

infections leading to emergency room visits and use of 

antibiotics. 

Pawel Wargocki and David P. 

Wyon 2006m

Outdoor air supply 

rate and classroom 

temperatures 

The speed at which 

students completed 

various mathematics, 

reading 

comprehension, and 

proofreading tasks 

Increasing the outdoor air supply rate and reducing 

elevated classroom temperatures significantly 

improved student performance, primarily how quickly 

students completed tasks. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected studies. 

a

David Branham, “The Wise Man Builds His House upon the Rock: The Effects of Inadequate School 

Building Infrastructure on Student Attendance,” Social Science Quarterly 85(5) (December 2004), 

1112-1128. 

b

Warren E. Hathaway, “Effects of School Lighting on Physical Development and School 

Performance,” The Journal of Educational Research 88(4) (March-April 1995), 228-242. 

c

Lisa Heschong, Ihab Elzeyadi, and Carey Knecht, “Re-Analysis Report: Daylighting in Schools, 

Additional Analysis, Tasks 2.2.1 through 2.2.5” Heschong Mahone Group, (Fair Oaks, Calif.: 2002). 

See http://www.newbuildings.org/pier/overview.htm (last accessed Sept. 29, 2008). This is a 

reanalysis of results from Lisa Heschong, “Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the 

Relationship between Daylighting and Human Performance,” Heschong Mahone Group, (Fair Oaks, 

Calif.: July 1999). 

d

Rikard Küller and Carin Lindsten, “Health and Behavior of Children in Classrooms with and without 

Windows,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (1992),305-317. 

e

Lorraine E. Maxwell and Gary W. Evans, “The Effects of Noise on Pre-School Children’s PreReading Skills,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (2000), 91-97. 

f

Douglas E. Mitchell and Ross E. Mitchell, “The Impact of California’s Class Size Reduction Initiative 

on Student Achievement: Detailed Findings from Eight School Districts,” California Educational 

Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside (1999). 

g

Teija Meklin, T. Husman, A. Vepsäläinen, M. Vahteristo, J. Koivisto, J. Halla-Aho, A. Hyvärinen, D. 

Moschandreas, and A. Nevalainen, “Indoor Air Microbes and Respiratory Symptoms of Children in 

Moisture Damaged and Reference Schools,” Indoor Air 12(3) (2002), 175-183. 

Page 39 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining 

School Facilities and Student Outcomes 

h

Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz and Lilian Marti, “A School System at Risk: A Study of the Consequences 

of Overcrowding in New York City Public Schools,” Institute for Urban and Minority Education, 

Teachers College Columbia University, (New York: January 1995). 

i

Karl G. Rosén and George Richardson, “Would Removing Indoor Air Particulates in Children’s 

Environments Reduce Rate of Absenteeism—A Hypothesis,” The Science of the Total Environment

234 (1999), 87-93. 

j

Greta Smedje and Dan Norbäck, “New Ventilation Systems at Select Schools in Sweden—Effects on 

Asthma and Exposure,” Archives of Environmental Health 55(1) (January/February 2000), 18-25. 

k

C. Kenneth Tanner, “Explaining Relationships among Student Outcomes and the School’s Physical 

Environment,” Journal of Advanced Academics 19(3) (Spring 2008), 444-471. 

l

Taina Taskinen, A. Hyvärinen, T. Meklin, T. Husman, A. Nevalainen, and M. Korppi, “Asthma and 

Respiratory Infections in School Children with Special Reference to Moisture and Mold Problems in 

the School,” Acta Paediatrica 88(12) (1999), 1373-1379. 

m

Pawel Wargocki and David P. Wyon, “Research Report on Effects of HVAC on Student 

Performance,” ASHRAE Journal 48(10) (October 2006), 22-28 (American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 

Page 40 GAO-10-32 School Facilities
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-10-32 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov

Terrell G. Dorn, (202) 512-6923 or dornt@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Kathryn A. Larin and Maria D. 

Edelstein, Assistant Directors; Pamela R. Davidson; Gail F. Marnik; 

John W. Mingus, Jr.; Benjamin P. Pfeiffer; James M. Rebbe; Kimberly M. 

Siegal; Larry S. Thomas; Kathleen L. van Gelder; and Walter K. Vance made 

key contributions to this report. 

 School Facilities 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130881) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper