IES Blog

Institute of Education Sciences

Changes in America’s Public School Facilities From 1998-99 to 2012-13

By Lauren Musu-Gillette

The physical condition of school facilities is an important element of the school experience in the United States. To ensure that school facilities provide optimal conditions for learning, districts may need to build new facilities or upgrade existing facilities. During the first decade of the 21st century, public school systems in the United States spent, on average, over $20 billion annually on school construction (Baker and Bernstein 2012).[i] A recently released NCES report examined changes in school facilities in the U.S. from 1998-99 to 2012-13.

How did the average age of schools’ main instructional buildings change from 1998-99 to 2012-13?

In school year 2012-13, schools’ main instructional buildings were 19 years old, which was older than the average age of 16 years in the 1998-99 school year.[ii] In addition, on average, large schools were newer than small schools (by 8 years) and medium-sized schools (by 5 years) in 2012-13.

How did dissatisfaction with schools’ environmental factors change from 1998-99 to 2012-13?

In the 1998-99 school year, ventilation was the factor rated as unsatisfactory for the highest percentage of public schools while lighting was the lowest. However, by the 2012-13 school year, the percentage of public schools for which ventilation was rated as unsatisfactory had dropped, and the percentage for lighting increased. In fact, lighting was the only environmental factor that was rated as unsatisfactory for a higher percentage of public schools in 2012-13 than in 1998-99.


SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Changes in America’s Public School Facilities: From School Year 1998-99 to School Year 2012-13


Was there a difference in the percentage of schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations from 1998-99 to 2012-13? What was the estimated cost of these projects?

The percentage of public schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put onsite buildings in good overall condition was lower in 2012-13 than 1998-99 by 23 percentage points (53 vs. 76 percent). However, the average cost of these projects was estimated to be $1.4 million more per school in 2012–13 than in 1998–99, adjusting for inflation.

Was there a difference in the percentage of schools with plans for building improvements in the next 2 years from 1998-99 to 2012-13?

A lower percentage of public schools in the 2012–13 school year had plans for building improvements in the next 2 years, compared to 1998-99 (39 vs. 48 percent). However, approximately 39 percent of public schools in the 2012–13 school year had plans for major repairs, renovations, or replacements to at least one building feature in the next 2 years.


[i] Baker, L., and Bernstein, H. (2012). The Impact of School Buildings on Student Health and Performance: A Call for Research. New York: McGraw Hill Research Foundation. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/McGrawHill_ImpactOnHealth.pdf.

[ii] The age of the school was defined based on the year of the most recent major renovation or the year of construction of the main instructional building if no renovation had occurred.

Financing Education: National and State Funding and Spending for Public Schools in 2014

By Stephen Q. Cornman and Lauren Musu-Gillette

Revenues and expenditures increased in public K-12 education for the 2013-14 school year, the most recent year data is available, according to a recently released report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The report shows that, nationally, spending on elementary and secondary education increased in school year 2013–14, reversing a decline in spending for the previous four years.

The First Look report, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2013–14 (Fiscal Year 2014) is based on data from the National Public Education Finance Survey (NPEFS), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD).

The amount of money spent, per pupil, in U.S. public elementary and secondary schools rose to $11,066 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.[i] That is a 1.2 percent increase over the previous year (FY 2013), after adjusting for inflation.  Although spending per student has increased overall from 2002–03 to 2013–14, it had decreased each year from 2008–09 to 2012–13  In order to compare spending from one year to the next, expenditures are converted to constant dollars, which adjusts figures for inflation.


NOTE: Spending is reported in constant 2014–15 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2002–03 through 2012–13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 236.65


At the state level, spending per student ranged from a low of $6,546 in Utah to $20,577 in the District of Columbia (D.C.). In addition to the District of Columbia, current expenditures per pupil exceeded $15,000 in eight states: 

  • New York ($20,156); 
  • New Jersey ($18,780); 
  • Alaska ($18,466); 
  • Connecticut ($18,401); 
  • Vermont ($18,066); 
  • Wyoming ($15,903); 
  • Massachusetts ($15,886); and 
  • Rhode Island ($15,372). 

Current expenditures per pupil increased by 1 percent or more in 25 states between FY 13 and FY 14.


Current Expenditures per pupil for public elementary and secondary education, by state: Fiscal Year 2014

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “National Public Education Financial Survey


The report also presents national and state level data on public school funding by source.[ii] In FY 2014, total revenues per pupil averaged $12,460 nationally, an increase of 1.1 percent from FY 2013. This reversed a decrease of 1.1 percent between FY 2012 and FY 2013. Total revenues increased by 1.6 percent (from $613.2 to $623.2 billion) from FY 13 to FY 14, local revenues increased by 0.5 percent (from $279.0 to $280.5 billion), state revenues increased by 3.9 percent (from $277.5 to $288.2 billion), and federal revenues decreased by 3.9 percent (from $56.7 to $54.5 billion), after adjusting for inflation.

The percentage of total funding from federal sources accounted for 9 percent of total funding in both 2002–03 and 2012–13; however, there were notable fluctuations during this period. The federal percentage increased from 8 percent of funding 2007–08 to 13 percent of funding in 2010–11. This increase reflects, in part, the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). As the funds from the program were spent, the federal percentage of total funding decreased to 10 percent in 2011–12 and to 8.7 percent in 2013–14. Local sources accounted for 45 percent of total funding in 2013–14. The percentage of total funding from state sources decreased from 49 percent in school year 2002–03 to 46 percent in school year 2013–14.


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2002–03 through 2012–13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 235.10.


[i] Spending refers to current expenditures. Current expenditures are comprised of expenditures for the day-to-day operation of schools and school districts for public elementary and secondary education, including expenditures for staff salaries and benefits, supplies, and purchased services. Current expenditures include instruction, instruction-related, support services (e.g., social work, health, and psychological services), and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, but exclude expenditures on capital outlay, other programs, and interest on long-term debt. 

[ii] Funding refers to revenues. Revenues are comprised of all funds received from external sources, net of refunds, and correcting transactions. Noncash transactions, such as receipt of services, commodities, or other receipts in kind are excluded, as are funds received from the issuance of debt, liquidation of investments, and nonroutine sale of property.

 

 

High Job Satisfaction Among Teachers, but Leadership Matters

By Lauren Musu-Gillette

Are teachers satisfied with their jobs? Overall, the answer appears to be yes. However, a recent NCES report highlights that teacher job satisfaction differs by school characteristics.

Newly released data shows that at least 9 out of 10 teachers reported that they were satisfied with their jobs in 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. A higher percentage of private school teachers than public school teachers reported that they were satisfied with their jobs in all of these years.


Percent of teachers reporting they were satisfied in their jobs: School years 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12

NOTE: “Satisfied” teachers are those who responded “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” to the statement: “I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school.”
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).


Differences in teacher job satisfaction also emerged based on perceptions of administrative support.[i] In 2011–12, a higher percentage of teachers who believed that the administration in their schools was supportive were satisfied with their jobs. Among teachers who felt that the administration in their schools was supportive, 95 percent were satisfied with their jobs. This was 30 percentage points higher than the percentage of teachers did not feel the administration was supportive. This pattern was seen in private schools as well and is consistent with previous research that demonstrates the importance of schools administrators to teachers’ working conditions.[ii]   


Percent of satisfied teachers, by their perceptions of administrative support: School year 2011–12

NOTE: “Satisfied” teachers are those who responded “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” to the statement: “I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school.”
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).


[i] Support was measured by teachers’ agreement or disagreement with the statement “The school administration’s behavior toward the staff is supportive and encouraging.”
[ii] Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions: How Predictive of Planned and Actual Teacher Movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2): 235-261.

What Are the Characteristics of Students Who Have Ever Been Suspended or Expelled From School?

By Lauren Musu-Gillette

Suspensions and expulsions from school are often associated with negative academic outcomes, such as lower levels of achievement and higher dropout rates.[i] Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:2009), NCES recently published a new spotlight feature in Indicators of School Crime and Safety that shows that a greater percentage of students who are suspended or expelled have low engagement in school and are less academically successful.  

While there is a large body of research on this topic, this is the first time that the nationally representative HSLS study has been used to examine outcomes for and characteristics of suspended and expelled youth. The comparisons presented here cannot be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but the longitudinal nature of the dataset could provide researchers an analytical path to understanding how these relationships have unfolded over time.

Research shows that students’ attitudes toward school are associated with their academic outcomes, and that schools with a supportive climate have lower rates of delinquency, including suspensions and expulsions.[ii] As part of the HSLS:2009 data collection, students reported on their school engagement[iii] and sense of school belonging[iv] in the fall of their ninth-grade year (2009). A greater percentage of students who were suspended or expelled between 2009 and 2012 were reported low school engagement entering high school. A similar pattern was seen with regard to a sense of belonging in school.


 Percentage of fall 2009 ninth-graders who were ever suspended or expelled through spring 2012, by school engagement and sense of school belonging: 2012

1A school engagement scale was constructed based on students' responses to questions about how frequently they went to class without homework done, without pencil or paper, without books, or late.

2A school belonging scale was constructed based on the extent to which students agreed or disagreed that they felt safe at school, that they felt proud of being part of the school, that there were always teachers or other adults at school they could talk to if they had a problem, that school was often a waste of time, and that getting good grades was important to them.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:2009).


The percentages of students who had ever been suspended or expelled were higher for those students with lower grade point averages (GPAs). Nearly half of students with a cumulative high school GPA below 2.0 had ever been suspended or expelled and just 11 percent had a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Additionally, as of 2013, a higher percentage of students who had not completed high school than of students who had completed high school had ever been suspended or expelled (54 vs. 17 percent).


Percentage of fall 2009 ninth-graders who were ever suspended or expelled through spring 2012, by cumulative high school grade point average and high school completion status: 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:2009).


Differences in the demographic characteristics of students who had ever been suspended or expelled were similar to those found in other datasets, such as the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). Characteristics of youth in the HSLS study who were ever suspended or expelled include:

  • A higher percentage of males (26 percent) than of females (13 percent) were ever suspended or expelled.
  • A higher percentage of Black students (36 percent) than of Hispanic (21 percent), White (14 percent), and Asian students (6 percent) had ever been suspended or expelled.
  • A higher percentage of students of Two or more races (26 percent) and Hispanic students had ever been suspended or expelled than White students.
  • A lower percentage of Asian students than of students of any other race/ethnicity with available data had ever been suspended or expelled.

For more information on the characteristics of students who have ever been suspended or expelled, please see the full spotlight in Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2015.


[i] Christle, C.A., Nelson, C.M., and Jolivette, K. (2004). School Characteristics Related to the Use of Suspension. Education and the Treatment of Children, 27(4): 509-526.; Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C., and Peterson, R.L. (2002). The Color of Discipline: Sources of Gender and Racial Disproportionality in School Punishment. Urban Review, 34(4): 317-342.

[ii] Morrison, G.M., Robertson, L., Laurie, B., and Kelly, J. (2002). Protective Factors Related to Antisocial Behavior Trajectories.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3): 277-290; Christle, C.A., Jolivette, K., and Nelson, C.M. (2005). Breaking the School to Prison Pipeline: Identifying School Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Delinquency. Exceptionality, 13(2): 69-88.

[iii] School engagement measured how frequently students went to class without homework done, without pencil or paper, without books, or late.

[iv] Sense of school belonging was measured based on the extent to which students agreed or disagreed that they felt safe at school, that they felt proud of being part of the school, that there were always teachers or other adults at school they could talk to if they had a problem, that school was often a waste of time, and that getting good grades was important to them.

Number of Juvenile Offenders in Residential Placement Falls; Racial/Ethnic Gaps Persist

By Lauren Musu-Gillette and Joel McFarland

Juvenile offenders held in residential placement facilities often experience disruptions to their education as they pass in and out of traditional schooling. While most facilities provide middle- and high-school-level educational services, these services are generally not comparable to those available in their community schools.[i] Understanding the characteristics of juveniles in these facilities can help educators and policy-makers in finding the best ways to support education for these youth.  

Between 1997 and 2013, the number of youth in residential placement facilities fell by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 105,000 to just over 54,000.[ii] While the overall decline is informative, the residential placement rate (the number of juvenile offenders in residential facilities per 100,000 youth in the general population) provides a more comparable measurement across time because it accounts for population growth and demographic changes. The overall residential placement rate fell from 356 per 100,000 youth in 1997 to 173 per 100,000 in 2013. Following this trend, the residential placement rate for youth in various racial and ethnic subgroups also fell significantly as seen in the chart below.


Residential placement rate (number of juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities) per 100,000 juveniles, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1997 through 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP).


Although residential placement rates declined for all racial/ethnic groups, disparities between racial/ethnic groups persist. In 2013, the residential placement rate for Black youth was 4.6 times the rate for White youth, and the rate for Hispanic youth was 1.7 times the rate for White youth. The American Indian/Alaska Native rate was 3.3 times the White rate, and the residential placement rate for Asian/Pacific Islander youth was approximately one-quarter of the rate for White youth (0.28).

The residential placement rate per 100,000 youth was also higher for Black males than for males or females of any other racial/ethnic group. Overall, Black males made up over one-third (35 percent) of all youth in residential placement in 2013. The rate of residential placement for Black males in 2013 was 804 per 100,000, which was 1.6 times the rate for American Indian/Alaska Native males, 2.7 times the rate for Hispanic males, 5 times the rate for White males, and more than 16 times the rate for Asian/Pacific Islander males.

While residential placement rates were lower for females than males from all racial/ethnic groups, there were also differences between racial/ethnic groups for females. The residential placement rate was highest for American Indian/Alaska Native females. This rate was 3.7 times the rate for Hispanic females, 4.8 times the rate for White females, and over 20 times the rate for Asian/Pacific Islander females. The rate for Black females was also more than twice the rate for Hispanic, White, and Asian/Pacific Islander females.


Residential placement rate (number of juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities) per 100,000 juveniles, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP).


Older youth made up a greater share of juveniles in residential placement than younger youth in 2013. A majority (69 percent) of juveniles in residential facilities were between the ages of 16 and 20; about 30 percent were between the ages of 13 and 15; and just 1 percent were age 12 or younger.

For more information on juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities, including data on the characteristics of those facilities, please see the full spotlight in Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2015.


[i] Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. (2013). Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010: Selected Findings. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved November 2015 from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241134.pdf; The Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2015). Locked Out: Improving Educational and Vocational Outcomes for Incarcerated Youth. New York: Author. Retrieved November 2015 from https://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/locked-out-improving-educational-and-vocational-outcomes-for-incarcerated-youth/.

[ii] Data presented here come from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP). The CJRP is a biennial survey of all secure and nonsecure residential placement facilities that house juvenile offenders, defined as persons younger than 21 who are held in a residential setting as a result of some contact with the justice system (i.e., being charged with or adjudicated for an offense). The CJRP provides a 1-day count of the number of youth in residential placement, as well as data on the characteristics of youth in these facilities and information about the facilities themselves.