School Facilities: Physical Conditions in School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands
Published: 2009-10-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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  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?
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Role of the Federal Government in Public Elementary and Secondary Education
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: Impact Aid Program
paragraphs: 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.
The largest component of the Impact Aid program is basic support  payments, which provided about $1 billion for fiscal year 2008 to about  1,200 public school districts, including about $520 million to 567 Indian  Impact Aid school districts for students living on Indian lands in 27 states.  (See app. II for preliminary fiscal year 2009 data.)
School districts eligible for Impact Aid decide how to use these funds. 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. 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.
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. The American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) appropriated $100  million for construction projects by Impact Aid school districts. 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).
section_title: Assessing Facility Conditions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Limited Information Is Available at the National Level about the Condition of School Facilities in Indian Impact Aid School Districts
paragraphs: 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.
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,  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 l  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 rincipals.
section_title: Three States Collect Independent Assessments on the Condition of School Facilities at Indian Impact Aid School Districts
paragraphs: 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.
NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to  education in the United States.
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   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  (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.
section_title: Data from 3 States Indicated Condition of School Facilities at Indian Impact Aid School Districts Ranged from Good to Poor
subsections: section_title: Montana
paragraphs: 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  Impact Aid for students residing on Indian lands—had facilities in good  condition. (See fig. 1.)
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.
section_title: New Mexico
paragraphs: 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  equipment and special fixtures systems and the weighting factors from  New Mexico’s assessment data would result in a more traditional FCI.  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.  acilities that were in poor condition.  (See fig. 2.)  (See fig. 2.)
Good (9 districts)
Good (27 districts)
Fair (10 districts)
Fair (32 districts)
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  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 one- third of the Indian Impact Aid and one-quarter of the other school districts  had interior systems that were in good condition.
section_title: Washington
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  mechanical systems that were in poor condition and almost three-fourths  (81) had exterior systems that were in fair condition.
section_title: School District Officials Identified Several Factors That Contribute to Facility Conditions, Including Fiscal Capacity, Age, and Location
paragraphs: 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  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.
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  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Studies of Broad School Facilities Measures
paragraphs: 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.  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. 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  that met health and safety compliance requirements, the schools’ average  student California Academic Performance Index scores were likely to be  higher. 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. 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  and schools with higher average achievement. 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. 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  associated with better student attendance rates, and that these in turn  were associated with better English and math achievement.
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 school- level factor that influences student learning. 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. 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.
section_title: Studies of Specific Characteristics of School Facilities
paragraphs: 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. Similarly, a study of 102 schools in California, Colorado, and  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. 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. Average test scores in classrooms with full- spectrum 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  than in other schools. 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.  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. 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. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.)
To determine what is known about how school facilities affect student  outcomes, we conducted a search for research studies that addressed this  topic. We identified studies dating back to 1980 and selected those that  were either from peer-reviewed journal articles or were methodologically  rigorous studies from (or sponsored by) other sources, such as  government institutions. Two GAO staffers, one analyst from the audit  team and one methodologist from the research group, systematically  reviewed each of the studies selected, evaluating the design, measurement  strategies, and methodological integrity and entering this information into  a database. From more than 100 studies that we initially selected, 24 were  selected to be included in our review. We excluded studies because, for  example, they did not provide sufficient detail on the analytical approach  or failed to control for other plausible explanations for differences. The  selected studies were sufficiently rigorous and included tests of  hypotheses; measures of association; and multivariate techniques, such as  ordinary least squares regression (see table 3).
In addition to these 24 studies, we reviewed 4 additional studies that  focused on the relationship between facility condition and teacher  outcomes rather than student outcomes. The selected studies were  sufficiently rigorous and included tests of hypotheses; measures of  association; and multivariate techniques, such as ordinary least squares  regression.
Each of these studies is subject to certain methodological limitations,  which limit the extent to which the results can be generalized to school  facilities in general or to school facilities in Indian Impact Aid districts.  Many of the studies focus on comparisons of schools without information  about the outcomes in schools before and after changes in school  facilities. This makes it difficult to isolate the effects of improvements in  school facilities. Some studies used small samples or had low response  rates to surveys or had missing data for many schools in the original  sample. Several studies focused on schools in other countries and the  extent to which their results are applicable to schools in the United States  is uncertain. In at least one case, the research was funded in part by a  group—such as a building association—that may have had an interest in  the results.
We conducted our work from September 2008 to October 2009 in  accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that  are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and  perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to  meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We  believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis  conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings in this product.
section_title: Appendix II: List of School Districts That Received Indian Impact Aid in Fiscal Year 2009
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Examples of Studies Examining School Facilities and Student Outcomes
paragraphs: Table 5 provides summary information about selected studies on broad  measures of school facilities and student achievement.
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.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.