Page 25

ACEF Journal Vol 3 Issue 1 December 2012

Yan One-sixth of schools reported that their heating system was unsatisfactory. Fifteen percent of schools were unsatisfied with indoor air quality. About 12-13% of schools were unsatisfied with the air filtration system and local exhaust system. Only 7% of schools indicated that their air conditioning was unsatisfactory. The Chi-square test results revealed that the rural school district superintendents’ satisfaction ratings with the environmental conditions show some variation by school characteristics. For example, they were more unsatisfied with their high school local exhaust system than elementary schools (10% rated as poor versus 15% rated as borderline), 2 (3, N = 126) = 15.07, p School district superintendents in Central areas were more unsatisfied with their local exhaust system than schools in Western and Eastern areas (27% versus 8% and 5%), 2 (6, N = 126) = 27.82, p uperintendents’ satisfaction ratings with indoor air quality condition and air conditioning did not show any variation by school characteristics with regard to instructional level, region, and percentage of low-income students (all ps > .05). Building conditions: Major features. The Survey on Rural School Building Conditions collected information about satisfaction with four major features in rural school buildings: (a) roof; (b) foundations; (c) drywall, plaster, and bricks; and (d) exterior and interior walls. The majority of rural school district superintendents reported that the foundation, drywall, plaster, and bricks; and exterior and interior walls in their schools were satisfactory (over 50% were satisfactory and over 23% were excellent). The condition of the schools’ roofs was rated as lowest in these major building features. Approximately a quarter of the respondents indicated their schools’ roof was unsatisfactory. The rural school district superintendents’ satisfaction ratings with roofs, foundations, and walls did not vary significantly by school characteristics, such as instructional level, region, and percentage of low-income students (all ps > .05). However, rural school district superintendents’ satisfaction ratings with drywall, plaster, and bricks show some variation by region and the percentage of low-income students. For example, school district superintendents in Western and Central areas were more unsatisfied with their drywall, plaster, and bricks than school district superintendents in Eastern area (24% and 25% versus 0%), 2 (6, N = 126) = 16.01, p = .01. In addition, school district superintendents were more likely to report drywall, plaster, and bricks as satisfactory for more affluent schools (schools with less than 20% low-income students) than for less wealthy schools (schools with the higher concentration of low-income students), 93% versus 55%, 2 (9, N = 126) = 22.52, p = .01 Building conditions: Minor features. The Survey on Rural School Building Conditions Survey collected information about satisfaction with four minor features in rural school buildings: (a) interior water supply, (b) exterior water supply, (c) lockers, and (d) male/female restrooms. Over 90% of rural school district superintendents reported that their interior/exterior water supply and lockers were satisfactory (over 50% satisfactory and over 40% excellent). Approximately 89% of rural school district superintendents reported their male and female restrooms to be satisfactory or excellent. The Chi-square test results revealed that the rural school district superintendents’ satisfaction ratings with interior water supply and lockers did not vary significantly by school characteristics, such as instructional level, region, and percentage of low-income students (all ps > .05). 25 Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012


ACEF Journal Vol 3 Issue 1 December 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above