Skip to content

Category: EFC Blogs

Published on

By Angel Ford, Ed.D.

In my last blog, Learning Spaces Encourage or Discourage Autonomy Support, I proposed that physical learning environments affect the level of autonomy support that teachers feel and, in turn, the level of autonomy support that teachers are able to provide their students. In this blog, I focus on how the design of the physical learning spaces can affect students’ autonomy.

Here’s a quick recap as to why autonomy supportive learning environments are important. Autonomy is the feeling of being able to make choices about one’s own behavior and it is a key component of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As autonomy increases, intrinsic motivation often increases; therefore, autonomy supportive learning environments are beneficial for increasing student engagement and success.

The question we often ask as educators is: How can we motivate our students? Deci & Flaste (1996) explain, '“The proper question is not, how can people motivate others?” but rather, “how can people create the conditions within which others will motivate themselves?”' (p. 10).   The key question for this blog is: What are obstacles to student autonomy within the physical learning environments?

Unfortunately, schools—like prisons, factories, and hospitals—are often designed and built to enable and encourage a certain level of control (Dovey, 2014). This means that in traditional school buildings educators have to work against the built environment to produce a climate that is autonomy supportive. Evidence is plentiful that the social environment or social climate of a school affects learning. Studies are starting to produce evidence that the physical environment either helps in “facilitating learning and well-being or posing a challenge to them” (Sjöblom, Mälkki, Sandström, & Lonka, 2016).

Not only is the institutional design of school buildings a concern, the rise of security in schools has made the physical environment of schools more prisonlike. The increase of cameras and metal detectors can have a negative affect on students’ perceptions of safety and security (Mallett, 2015). The intention of increasing safety may actually have the opposite affect on how students feel.

In addition to the institution-like design of school buildings and increasing security measures, there are other physical obstacles to creating autonomy supportive learning environments. For example, a teacher who has to teach in a specialized classroom setting such as an auditorium would have to put forth a great deal of effort to overcome the association that students automatically make with that type of space. “An auditorium implies a different positioning and division of roles than a classroom where the desks are organized in groups and the teacher has no central position but is, instead moving around the classroom on a chair” (Sjöblom et al., 2016, p. 21). Other examples of physical environment mismatches of form and function would be “having to work on a group assignment in a silent library hall or endeavoring to understand new theoretical material in a noisy hallway” (Sjöblom et al., 2016, p. 21).

Sjöblom et al., (2016) suggest that issues in the physical environment decrease the ‘cognitive resources’ students can use for learning. Effective teachers work around the physical limitations of their classrooms when possible, but there are times when the design of the spaces dictates pedagogical options. School building design should accommodate an array of learning methodologies in order to allow for the feeling of student autonomy as teachers offer options throughout their teaching.

Mallett (2015) suggests that schools are run like prisons and feel like prisons. Prisons are places where autonomy is purposefully stripped away from inmates. Does the design of the school built environment make students feel more like controlled inmates than students motivated to learn? Studies could be conducted that will help answer this question and other questions about how the physical learning environment can be designed or altered to promote rather than hinder students’ feelings of autonomy.

 

References:

Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. Penguins Books.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Dovey, K. (2014). Framing places: mediating power in built form. Routledge.

Mallett, C. A. (2015). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. Springer Publishing Company.

Sjöblom, K., Mälkki, K., Sandström, N., & Lonka, K. (2016). Does Physical Environment Contribute to Basic Psychological Needs? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Learning in the Chemistry Laboratory. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1), 17-39.

Dr. Angel Ford is a research associate with Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC).  Dr. Ford has previous experience working as a middle/high school administrator and actively participates in research and content management of the EFC website.

 

Published on

By Angel Ford, Ed.D.

A key component of motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, is autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985).  Autonomy can be defined as “the ability to think, feel, and make decisions by oneself” (Nunez & Leon, 2015, p. 277).  Evidence shows that autonomy supportive environments that take into account a person’s perspective, allow for choices and exploration, encourage self initiation, and provide rationale for activities are more motivating (Deci, 2012).  Autonomy supportive environments encourage “inner motivational resources” (Nunez & Leon, 2015, p. 277) and creativity (Deci, 2012).

I propose that the physical conditions of classrooms either enhance or restrict the sense teachers have about the autonomy support they receive and the autonomy support they can provide their students.  The condition, design, and layout of classrooms affect teachers’ presentation of materials through allowing for or limiting choices of pedagogy, curriculum design, and usable learning techniques.  Teachers with limited ability to choose how to present material because of physical restrictions within the learning spaces may feel a lack of autonomy support.  It is important that teachers feel support for autonomy because when they do “their students learn in a deeper, more conceptual way.  The students enjoy learning more and they feel more confident and competent about themselves” (Deci, 2012).

Classroom conditions also enhance or limit teachers’ abilities to provide autonomy support to their students.  If teachers don’t have the physical spaces necessary to make choices about how they will teach subjects, they will be unable to pass along choices to their students for engaged self-directed learning.  If we want to promote autonomy and internal motivation among both teachers and students, it may be critical to provide the spaces and resources necessary to allow for more movement and options for different teaching and learning styles.

A teacher may desire to present a unit on geography by using group work and/or project-based learning.  In an ideal situation, the teacher would be able to give students choices about how to research and prepare presentations, i.e. options to use the library, Internet, or resources gleaned from home to create posters, video presentations, or displays of other forms.  This teacher may be unable to offer these options to the students due to a temporarily closed library (because it is being used as a classroom) or the fact that the school’s technology infrastructure does not facilitate video or digital presentations.  This limits the teacher’s choices and the choices offered to the students.  This could be compared to telling a mechanic to fix a car, but not giving her a garage to work in or the tools to complete the repair.

In this hypothetical example, the physical condition of the school discouraged autonomy support.  If these conditions are temporary or only happen infrequently, the valuable lesson of flexibility can be enhanced for both teachers and students as they work around an obstacle.  Unfortunately, that is not the case in many schools around our nation.  In many schools, teachers’ choices are limited each and every day and thus the choices offered to the students are also limited, creating atmospheres that are not as autonomy supportive and motivating as they could be for students.  Deci (2012) suggests that it is more important to create conditions where people can motivate themselves than it is to ask how to motivate them.  He then goes on to say an environment with such conditions is autonomy supportive.

I’m not suggesting that the magic ingredient to make all teachers autonomy supportive is to drop them into the perfectly designed classroom, but I am stating that the physical environment in which they teach has an impact on the level of support they feel for their own autonomy and the level they are able to employ for their students.  The restrictions on teachers’ autonomy in instructional design may be a damaging consequence of poor school conditions or design.  It is not only frustrating, but also a direct deterrent on how teachers can create an environment of autonomy support for learning.

References:

Deci, E. (2012, August, 13). Promoting Motivation, Health and Excellence: Ed Deci at TEDxFlourCity.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGrcets0E6I

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Núñez, J. L., & León, J. (2015). Autonomy Support in the Classroom. European Psychologist.

Rogat, T. K., Witham, S. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context: Extending the range of academically significant autonomy supportive practices. Teachers College Record, 116(7).

Roth, G., & Weinstock, M. (2013). Teachers’ epistemological beliefs as an antecedent of autonomy-supportive teaching. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 402-412.

Dr. Angel Ford is a research associate with Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC).  Dr. Ford has previous experience working as a middle/high school administrator and actively participates in research and content management of the EFC website.

Published on

By Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP

E. M. Wallace makes some very appropriate points about keeping schools clean in her recent blog post Dust, Droppings, and Desperation (February 18, 2016). Schools need to protect children and employees in and around the buildings, and cleaning the buildings is one of the cornerstone activities of that fiduciary responsibility.

I was disturbed by the basic story of that blog post, and I was also very disturbed by the involvement of young adults in the cleanup process. These individuals were workers in a hazardous site. “They were met with thick layers of dust, “filth”, heavy mold and mildew, scattered dead crickets, and vermin droppings…”(Wallace, 2016). The first question is whether it is ever appropriate for children or young adults to be asked to work in a hazardous site; the second question is if it is appropriate for them to be there, were they (whether they were children, adolescents or adults) afforded the necessary personal protective equipment and processes to work in a hazardous site?

The issue of young adults (and I would add children and adults to this consideration in many situations) volunteering for cleanups goes well beyond this example. Many volunteer groups took children into Louisiana and other states for post-Katrina cleanup, and many volunteer groups go into other areas post-disaster or to do a “spring cleaning” of a riverbank or similar area. Religious groups, scouting groups, community organizations and others undertake these activities (The Connection Newspapers, 2006; Lovewell, 2007).

Child or adolescent volunteers are still in the formative part of their lives when they are more vulnerable to environmental hazards than are adults (Cohen-Hubal, et al., 2014). At this point in their lives, their brain, lungs, endocrine system and other parts of the body are still developing; therefore, they are more vulnerable to chemical, physical and biological toxicants that they can encounter in their environment.

I don’t know, but I certainly suspect that in the situation referred to by Wallace (2016) neither the volunteers nor their parents (if the volunteers had not reached the age of majority) were informed in detail about the potential hazards to be encountered at this school. Did the individuals who organized this activity have any idea as to the hazards to be encountered? How could the worker-volunteers and their parents have given consent to participate in this activity if adequate and appropriate information was, presumably, not provided?

All workers in hazardous environments should be afforded appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and receive adequate instructions to use that equipment appropriately (OSHA, n.d.). They need to receive training for appropriate work practices to be used in a toxic environment. Moreover, toxic materials can hitch a ride to the workers’ home and family, on their hair, skin, clothing and shoes (Zirschky, 1996; Sattler, & Davis, 2008) unless workers have PPE which they put on before entering the site and remove before returning home. Workers need to be able to leave their shoes at the worksite unless the shoes were covered by the PPE. Workers also need the opportunity to wash before eating during lunch and breaks so that they do not ingest toxic materials with their food.

I am very concerned that individuals, particularly those involved in organizing these types of activities, get caught up in the do-good, feel-good aspects of the projects and how these types of activities "build character" and "teach compassion" and fulfill community service or religious goals. While all of that may be true, these same individuals do not consider the risks to which they are exposing themselves or their charges. Organizers have a responsibility not to put volunteers in harm’s way. This is particularly true for child and adolescent volunteers who may not have the judgment to remove themselves from the activity either because they don’t perceive the danger or are too concerned with “going against the flow” of what their friends and supervisors are doing. The organizers need to fully consider the potential risks of having volunteers, particularly children and adolescents, work in these settings as well as the benefits. I, for one, think that the risks, in some instances, outweigh the benefits. Children and adolescents should not be used as a source of free labor, nor should children and adolescents be on cleanup crews in hazardous sites.

References

Cohen-Hubal, EA, et al. (2014). Identifying important life stages for monitoring and assessing risks from exposures to environmental contaminants- Results of a World Health Organization Review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 69, 113-124

The Connection Newspapers. (2006). Scouts help in Katrina cleanup Boy Scout Troop 160 of Chantilly, Herndon lends a hand. Retrieved from http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2006/aug/02/scouts-help-in-katrina-cleanup/  Accessed 18 March 2016

Lovewell, MA. (2007). Youth group at federated church returns from mission to aid New Orleans cleanup. Vineyard Gazette. Retrieved from https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2007/01/11/youth-group-federated-church-returns-mission-aid-new-orleans-cleanup#sthash.XYm5J2PN.dpuf

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d). U.S. Department of Labor. Personal Protective Equipment. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3151.html

Sattler, B., & Davis, A. D. B. (2008). Nurses' role in children's environmental health protection. Pediatric Nursing, 34(4), 329.

Wallace, EM. (2016). Dust, Droppings, and Desperation. Educational Facilities Clearing House. Retrieved from http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/efc-blog/dust-droppings-and-desperation/

Zirschky, J. (1996). Take-home toxin pathway. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 122, 430-436.

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP is Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and Emeritus Professor of Environmental & Occupational Health at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at GWU. He currently serves as a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Healthy Schools Network and others on issues pertaining to children’s health and the environment.

Published on

By Angel Ford

School facility conditions are tied to student attitudes, behaviors, and success, therefore little argument can be raised that school facility upkeep and construction should be a consideration in educational planning and funding decisions. Students in buildings in poor condition perform lower than students in buildings in adequate or exceptional condition. Fortunate or privileged students often attend beautiful, clean, well resourced schools and unfortunate or underprivileged students often attend unattractive, dirty, and even unsafe schools.

In the book Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, Carter and Welner (2013) discuss how closing the opportunity gap would lead to closing the achievement gap. The achievement gap appears in standardized testing, dropout rates, college readiness, and general academic achievement.

Carter and Welner (2013) compile essays from a number of authors tackling the issues of inequity in educational opportunities and link these inequities directly to the achievement gap. The authors of the essays discuss concerns about housing disparities, preschool enrollment disparities, teacher quality disparities, resource disparities, and others. Along this vein, I would like to suggest that the condition of educational facilities be considered as part of the resource disparities and, thus, a part of the opportunity gap.

Over half of the schools in our nation are in need of repairs to be considered in satisfactory condition (NCES, 2014). The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2013) grade American educational facilities with a “D”. This means that a high percentage of students are attending classes in buildings that are subpar and even, in some cases, considered unsafe. Twenty-nine percent of school buildings have safety features in need of repair (NCES, 2014).

Unfortunately, school buildings that are in need of repair are often in the poorest districts, where students already contend with variables predicting lower academic success. Students in poor districts are often those that are lower on the socioeconomic scale, students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, students who are minorities, students who are homeless, or students in foster care (NEA, 2015). The condition of the school buildings they attend appear to be one more challenge against their achievement.

Could improving the places where these less fortunate students learn and equalizing the opportunities that each student has, improve their academic success? I am not saying that improving school buildings would automatically solve the academic achievement gap. Of course, this is an over-simplified solution and many variables need to be considered, but this is one aspect of education in our nation that we know is not equitable and that we know has an impact. We know this from both qualitative and quantitative research, from both a breakdown of isolated variables and a holistic picture. The condition of school facilities should not be ignored when looking at the achievement gap.

Angel Ford is a research associate with Education Facilities Clearinghouse.  Dr. Ford actively participates in research and content management of the EFC website.  

References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2013). 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/schools/overview

Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Condition of America’s public schools facilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf

Published on

by T. R. Dunlap

Last week the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) had its annual conference in Kissimmee, Florida. Educational leaders from across the country gathered together at a beautiful resort for workshops on many topics facing public middle and high schools.

The event featured presenters who are on the cutting edge of educational research and administrative practice. Staff members from the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) were also in attendance. The EFC conducted a workshop on how school leaders can engage their communities by developing teams to conduct site assessments and to create emergency operations plans. These approaches to addressing school safety are critical. A number of the workshop attendees indicated that, as school administrators, they would make specific changes to their site assessment and emergency planning process as a result of the workshop. We at the EFC were very encouraged to know that these educational leaders will take steps to bolster the safety of their facilities and retool their operational planning for emergencies.

At this national conference, it was terrific to see school leaders gather together to address collaboratively the pressing issues schools encounter and to develop constructive ways to improve secondary education in this country. We must keep in mind how valuable organizations and conferences are to equip and enable leaders to do their jobs effectively. However, many school leaders cannot attend a professional conference or participate in a workshop with their peers. What resources are available for them? How can we ensure that all school leaders have the tools and resources available to make the most of their schools?

The EFC is here to help! We can come to your school. The EFC provides workshops for school leaders and staff at no cost. Learn more about the workshop opportunities we can provide your school for free.

 

At the recent national conference, many principals were curious about the free consulting services the EFC offers to improve public school facilities. The EFC works with schools across the United States to provide free technical assistance to make them a more safe, energy efficient, and clean space that fosters innovative teaching and learning. For more information on how the EFC can come to your school, watch this brief video.

 

 

Many school leaders identify facility needs as a top priority to improve the educational experience of their students. The mission of the EFC is to equip school leaders to make the most of their learning environments. The resources we provide to schools are indispensable. If you would like to discuss ways that we can help your school, contact the EFC today.

Published on

by E. M. Wallace, MPH

A group of college students from a church in Texas spent their spring break last year volunteering in an impoverished community in another state.  A local nonprofit organization—intent on making a difference in the lives of school-aged children—was familiar with the needs of the target community and had arranged a number of service projects, one of which was cleaning a local school.  This cleanup operation did not follow a hurricane, tornado, or flood but rather a more insidious kind of disaster.  The school simply couldn’t afford a fulltime custodian—a creeping tragedy in many locales attributed to the slashing of school budgets.

What did the students encounter as they worked for several days cleaning restrooms and classrooms?  They were met with thick layers of dust, “filth”, heavy mold and mildew, scattered dead crickets, and vermin droppings on rugs where children are meant to gather and read.  It was apparent this operation wasn’t a special, short-term beautification project; this project was putting a BAND-AID® on chronic facility neglect.

Although I believe in the importance of community engagement and certainly value the role of volunteers in schools, I was taken aback at this assignment and the fact that it was initiated by the community rather than by school leaders.  How desperate have budgets become that basic cleaning is not adequately funded?  And, how dulled (or defeated) have school leaders become to tolerate such subpar facility conditions?  A tenet of organizational training is that leaders should not rely on volunteers for mission-critical tasks.  I wonder how many school administrators consider regular cleaning of classrooms an ‘optional extra’ or even a ‘luxury’—dependent on the kindness of, in this case, strangers?

Can we agree that a clean school environment is vital to the educational mission?  Most importantly, cleaning serves a health purpose and is also a matter of safety and injury prevention.  But, even cleaning for cosmetic purposes can make a difference and increase teacher and student satisfaction, productivity, and achievement.  Explore the EFC library (www.efc.gwu.edu) and/or read Dr. Linda Lemasters’ (2016) most recent blog to learn more about the research findings supporting the impact of clean schools on health and attendance, learning and achievement, teacher satisfaction, and positive school climate.  It is readily apparent that neglect of school facilities is shortsighted and actually sabotages the educational purpose of institutions.

Can we agree on an acceptable baseline standard of cleanliness for schools? 

APPA defines custodial service benchmarks on a scale of 1 (Orderly Spotlessness) to 5 (Unkempt Neglect) and finds maintaining schools at Level 2 (Ordinary Tidiness) to Level 3 (Casual Inattention) is generally acceptable.  Criteria for each of these levels can be found in APPA’s (n.d.) useful Custodial Operation Self-Analysis tool.  (For example, Level 2 allows for up to two days’ worth of dust.)  Use the benchmarks as an objective reality check on conditions at your schools.

Can we agree on minimal staffing requirements to achieve a basic level of custodial upkeep?  Formulas exist for determining recommended custodial staffing levels for schools, primarily based on square footage, types of spaces, and the desired level of cleaning.  Guidelines for schools suggest one janitor can cover from 15,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. in an eight-hour shift, depending on several variables (Minnesota Department of Health, 2008; Lookabaugh & Simmons, 2012).

Beyond ensuring an adequate number of custodial FTEs are in place, the training of cleaning staff is also important.  Knowledge of germs and biologics, airborne pollutants, and chemicals; understanding procedures for accidents, spills, and waste disposal; awareness of safety and environmental regulation; and strategies for efficiency are core competencies to address (Mudarri, 2012).   Although volunteers—with appropriate supervision, protective equipment, supplies, and training—might supplement cleaning efforts at times, they should not be thrown in, unequipped and unprepared, as substitutes for professional cleaning staff.

Can we agree on who is ultimately responsible for maintaining clean school environments?   Perhaps not.  Janitors may come to mind, as they serve on the front lines.  However, in the fullest sense of the word, we can all act as ‘custodians’:

cus·to·di·an
Function: noun
: one that guards and protects or takes care of something
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.)

Guard, protect, take care of.  These are words that inspire a feeling of safety and wellbeing.  Maintaining a clean learning environment is ultimately an expression of welcome and care.  A welcoming and safe environment enables teachers and students to more fully engage in learning activities.  The service completed by the college volunteers and coordinated by the community group was a commendable and practical expression of caring.  As citizens, we can also guard and protect schoolchildren by voicing concerns and expecting accountability.

Responsible management means that educational leaders at the school, district, and state levels ultimately must marshal adequate resources to monitor and maintain a basic level of cleanliness at schools under their jurisdiction.  While I sympathize with the challenge of limited resources, it is still fundamentally the responsibility of designated school officials to guard, protect, and take care of their assigned schools and ensure clean, healthy, and safe environments for all building occupants.  This should not be left to chance.  Someone has to lead the drive to address building conditions and achieve the objective of clean and healthy schools.  Demonstrating determination will pay dividends!

References

APPA.  (n.d.).  Custodial operation self-analysis program.  Retrieved from https://www.appa.org/files/general/allcustodialanalysis.pdf

Lemasters, L.  (2016, February 4).  You can’t afford not to keep your schools clean!  Retrieved from http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/efc-blog/you-cant-afford-not-to-keep-your-schools-clean/

Lookabaugh, G., & Simmons, D. L.  (2012).  M & O staffing model:  How many is enough?  Retrieved from http://www.epmamaine.com/Custodial_Staffing_Maine__How_Many_is_Enough__6-26-2012.pdf

Merriam-Webster.  (n.d.)  Retrieved from wordcentral.com

Minnesota Department of Health.  (2008).  Cleaning, indoor environmental quality and health:  A review of the scientific literature.  Retrieved from http://www.buildingwellness.com/assets/documents/Indoor_Environment_Characterization_Of_A_Non_Problem_Building.pdf

Mudarri, D.  (2011).  Clean & healthy schools for Dummies®.  Hoboken, New Jersey:  Wiley Publishing.

E. M. Wallace is a Research Associate with the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, a program of the George Washington University and the Graduate School of Education and Human Development. She has a background in community health education and enjoys cross-sector work that promotes child and family health and wellbeing.

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters

Several years ago one of my doctoral students was appointed principal of a large inner city school.  He shared with me his shock at his first visit:  he said a horrible odor of urine and filth met him at the door.  Hallways were dirty from years of use, with no paint; lockers were peeling and rusted; floors looked dirty because dirt had been covered with wax; dirt was so accumulated in corners that the floor could not be seen.  Bathrooms were intolerable; no one would want to use them.  The thought of elementary children using them was unthinkable.  Classrooms were dingy, dirty, and uninviting; a long time had passed since the color of the walls was recognizable.  It was only a few weeks before school was to begin; he knew that he had to do something—anything—to make the school more welcoming and appropriate for teaching and learning.

My student was conducting his doctoral research on how the conditions of the school facility affect student achievement; he was familiar with the research and the preponderance of the evidence exhibiting a very strong connection between the places were students learn and achievement.  He also had an old, familiar dilemma:  he knew things he needed to do, but had no funds for his building.  Educators, however, do not always see a lack of funding as a reason not to get things done.  He got his leadership team and office staff together to develop a plan.   They decided to call for community cleaning days for the next weekend.  Posters when up; calls went out.  The principal contacted a couple of the local stores that sold paint and asked for any paint they were willing to donate, along with brushes, rollers, tape, and other supplies.  Parents were asked to bring cleaning supplies, brooms, and mops—and friends and neighbors willing to work on both the inside and outside of the school property.  Teachers were asked if they would volunteer to help paint and clean their classrooms and to make them inviting.

When school began the day after Labor Day, a miracle had happened.  Teachers and students opened the front doors to a bright and clean foyer, newly painted hallways, and lockers that had been scrubbed down.  Students entered freshly painted classrooms, with posters and bulletin boards that stood out on the clean walls.  Although a great deal of the donated paint had been white, tints were added to make the colors warm and inviting.  Restrooms were clean, painted, and smelled so much better.  Teachers were bubbly and happy about the changes; office staff benefitted from the teacher excitement, and the leadership team felt they had started the year on the right foot.

There was a phenomenon that was just the opposite of the broken windows theory.  Students, parents, teachers, and the community began to take great pride in their school and worked to continue the improvements begun during the work weekend.  A few days after school opened, the principal arrived to large pots of flowers at each front door; a local business donated new playground equipment; and, there seemed to be a school climate change taking place.  There was no research conducted on that particular school, but there is research that notes the condition of the school affects achievement.  Let’s look at a few research projects that had findings supporting this.

Indeed, in a study titled Clean Schools Promote Academic Success conducted at the Center for Facilities Research, the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers noted several interesting findings.  Eighty-eight percent of college students reported that a lack of cleanliness became a distraction; 84% responded that orderly spotlessness and ordinary tidiness are essential to a positive learning environment; 78% noted that cleanliness affected their health.  Students rated cleanliness the fourth most important building element to influence personal learning.

Many of the observations noted earlier were based on visual assessments.  The International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) is actively involved in assisting school districts in realizing the importance of clean schools.  The video How Dirty Is Your Child’s School notes some alarming statistics and germ hotspots.  Some of those include water fountain spigots (2,700,000 bacteria per inch), cafeteria trays (33,800 bacteria per inch), cold water faucets (32,000 bacteria per inch), followed by the cafeteria plates, computer keyboards, and toilet seats.

In a report from the schools in New York City several years ago, 40% of those interviewed noted conditions in the schools that could cause complications to their allergies and asthma.  Thirty-nine percent with medical conditions said the school conditions made their health worse.  The Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies (2010) reviewed the condition of schools and achievement in California.  In student studies, student health was directly related to the condition of the school buildings and student achievement.  In addition student health was directly related to attendance and dropout rates.

So, what is the real impact?  The Healthy Schools Network published astonishing numbers on this topic:

  • Nearly 22 million school days are lost annually to the common cold.
  • Thirty-eight million days are lost each school year to influenza.
  • Elementary students contract 8 to 10 bouts of colds or flu each school year.
  • Student absences lead to a higher number of dropouts. Please note video below:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nF7fN0WuUs)

  • Only 43.5 percent of school districts provide guidance for infectious disease prevention.

We can say with a great deal of confidence that healthy schools have a positive influence on attendance, thus achievement.  What we have not discussed is the monetary value.  Most of what we hear is that school funds are being cut; custodial budgets are going down, rather than up; school maintenance can barely afford to make sure air exchange is appropriate, as well as filters being changed regularly.

There is a value, however, which can be placed on healthy schools and the prevention of student and teacher absences.  For instance, teacher absences cost school districts an estimated $4 billion a year.  While I could not find a single cost estimate related to student absences, the state information indicates that localities lose billions and billions to student absences, because most state funding formulas are based on student attendance.  Thus, research indicates we cannot afford not to keep our schools clean and healthy.  Students and teachers spend the majority of their days in school.  If healthy schools mean healthier students and teachers, if healthier students and teachers mean more money to spend on instruction, and, if healthy schools are related to student achievement, then keeping schools ultra clean should be a moot point.

References:

Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers.  (2008, June). Cleanliness and Learning in Higher Education.  Education Facilities. Downloaded January 13, 2016 from http://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Study-Clean-Schools-Promote-Academic-Success-Facilities-Management-Educational-Facilities-News--9072

Healthy Schools Network. (1999). Neglected Buildings, Damaged Health:  A ‘Snapshot” of New York City Public School Environmental Conditions. Downloaded January 19, 2016 from http://www.healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html

HR Exchange. (2013, February). National Teacher Absence Data Shines Light on the High Costs of Missed Days.  Downloaded on January 19, 2016 from https://www.tasb.org/Services/HR-Services/Hrexchange/2013/February-2013/B-Absences-Costly.aspx

International Sanitary Supply Association. (2016).  How Dirty Is Your Child’s School?  Downloaded January 19, 2016 from http://www.issa.com/video#113

Joseph, N., Waymack, N., & Zielaski, D. (2014, June). Roll Call:  The Importance of Teacher Attendance. Downloaded on January 19, 2016 from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/RollCall_TeacherAttendance

Phillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. (2009, December 3).  The critical connection between student health and academic achievement:  How schools and policy makers can achieve a positive impact.  A Brief. California Education Supports Project.

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse

Linda is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University.  Her areas of expertise and research include educational planning, facilities management, and women CEOs.  She actively conducts research concerning the effects of the facility on the student and teacher, publishes within her field, and has written or edited numerous books including School Maintenance & Renovation:  Administrator Policies, Practices, and Economics and book chapters including a recent chapter, Places Where Children Play, published July, 2014 in Marketing the Green School:  Form, Function, and the Future.

Published on

By:  Dr. G. Victor Hellman, Jr.

In November 2015, Berkley’s Jeffrey Vincent and Liz Jain released the study, Going it Alone: Can California’s K-12 School Districts Adequately and Equitably Fund School Facilities?  In their research they conducted an analysis of spending on K-12 public school facilities within the state of California utilizing metrics that compare to industry standards.  Overall, they find substantial rates of underinvestment. While these findings have important implications for California policy, I also believe the authors have provided a practical framework for analysis that can be used by other states to examine the equity and adequacy of their facility financing.  In this blog, we will first establish some operational definitions, and then review Vincent and Jain’s analytic framework.  Finally we will examine their findings and review their policy recommendations.

Two concepts that are essential to Vincent and Jain’s analysis are equitable and adequate.  Adequate funding implies that the funding is sufficient to meet the needs or bring about the desired results for that which is funded.  For example, adequate funds must be budgeted to meet the school division’s operational and capital needs.  Now let’s examine the concept of equitable.  On a simplistic level, it is tempting to think of equitable and equal as synonymous.  This is not the case.  Equality implies that all parties are treated equally.  Using per pupil funding under the concept of equality would imply each school division within a state or each school within a division receives the same dollar amount per student.  While this method achieves equality of funding, it is not necessarily an equitable process.  Simply put, the concept of equity implies funding at a different level depending upon the needs.  At the core of equity is the fact that needs differ and spending must too.  A community with a high percentage of low socioeconomic students may need to spend more per pupil to level the playing field.  Some communities have higher real estate assessments (AV) on a per capita basis than others.  These communities are able to generate revenue easier than their lower socio-economic neighbors.  Only by funding equitably can equality be achieved.

In their analysis, Vincent and Jain identify some best practices for Maintenance and Operations (M&O) spending for school facilities.  For facility operations they utilize 1% of the current replacement value (CRV) on an annual basis as a minimum investment.  For routine maintenance they utilize 1.5 to 2% CRV as a minimum annual investment.  The division’s operating budget typically funds these expenditures.  Capital renewal or modernizations are typically funded by a division’s capital budget.  Projects that fall into this category deal with major repair, alterations and replacement of building systems (e.g. HVAC, roofs, windows).  Best practice annual investment is identified at 1.5 to 2% of CRV.  The authors postulate that by spending 3% CRV for M&O (from the operating budget) and 2% for capital renewal (from the capital budget), school facilities will be clean, safe and functional.  This assumption is noted as accurate provided there is no deferred maintenance for the facility.

For the analysis, Vincent and Jain first looked at the characteristics of California school districts spending above and below the 3% CRV for annual combined M&O.  Their findings show that only 38% of the districts spend at the best practice level of 3% of CRV or more while 62% of the districts spend less than the 3%.  From an equity perspective, the 38% of the districts spending 3% or more have an average assessed value of real property (AV) per student of $3,032,912 while the AV per student of the 62% of the divisions that do not meet the 3% spending is $1,030,594 or roughly 66% less than those districts that meet best practice.  When performing a similar analysis on capital renewal they find that 43% of the districts meet or exceed the 2% of CRV and 57% do not.  As in the previous analysis, the average AV per student for those districts that meet the best practice is $2,610,402 and for those districts that do not meet the benchmark, their average AV per student is $1,153,000 or more than 50% less.  AV is important to these comparisons inasmuch as it is a proxy for the districts’ ability to generate revenue.  Vincent and Jain found 38% of the districts failed to meet either benchmark.  The average AV per student of these districts was $878,202 compared to $2,346,441 AV for the 62% of the districts that met at least one of the two benchmarks.

From their analysis, Vincent and Jain put forth three findings:

  • The majority of school districts in California do not spend adequately on school facilities. Nearly 80% of the districts fail to meet minimum industry standard benchmark spending for M&O, capital renewal or both.
  • Districts that have more wealth spend more on their facilities, especially on capital renewal.
  • Districts that serve low income students spend proportionally more on M&O from their operating budgets thereby reducing available funds for instructional spending.

Vincent and Jain make four policy recommendations for the state of California based on their findings:

  • Establish stable, dedicated state funds for K-12 school facilities.
  • Distribute K-12 school facility funds equitably, adjusting for local wealth.
  • Improve standards for school facility planning and budgeting.
  • Establish a California School Facility Database to guide spending.

While the results of Vincent and Jain’s analysis should not shock or surprise anyone involved in school finance or facilities, the analysis does document and validate there are inequitable spending patterns on public K-12 facilities within the state of California.  More importantly, their analysis provides a conceptual framework that can be utilized by other states to examine their spending patterns on educational facilities.

A copy of the complete study can be found at http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/reports/going-it-alone-can-californias-k-12-school-districts-adequately-and-equitably-fund-school-facilities/

Dr. G. Victor Hellman, Jr., serves as the Research Project Director for the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC). Victor has more than 31 years of work experience in public schools in Virginia. Prior to joining the EFC, he served as Deputy Superintendent of Operations and Support for a mid-urban school district. In that role, he was responsible for finance, facilities, transportation, student services, and food services.

centerforcityschools

The Center for Cities + Schools (CC+S) at the University of California, Berkeley harnesses the potential of urban planning to close the opportunity gap and improve education.

Web: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu

Published on

By Angel Ford

She’s been teaching elementary grades for over 30 years.  At times she’s been in clean, well maintained classrooms with plenty of functional desks.  At times she’s been in classrooms with broken fixtures and a shortage of desks.

This year the poor conditions are just too much.  She has a student that can’t fit into any of the desks and has to sacrifice her own workspace just so he has a place to sit.  It’s December and she’s going on her second month without heat.  She encourages her students to wear gloves in the classroom. 

The lighting is out in one corner of her room so that students struggle to see their books and assignments.  One of her students recently broke a leg and is in a wheelchair.  The classroom is so small that he has to sit in the doorway—creating a safety hazard, while at the same time bringing in the added distraction of hallway noise.

In addition to these struggles, the custodial staff has been reduced and classrooms are only cleaned once a week.  Teachers are expected to take out their classroom trash daily.

The problems reach beyond individual classrooms.  Right now a couple of the stalls in the girls’ bathroom are not working, so bathroom breaks take longer than usual, taking time away from instruction.   The playground has equipment that is cordoned off because of safety concerns, so the children have less encouragement for physical activity while outside for recess.

Sure, there had been other trials increasing over the past few years too, such as administrative turnover and increases in high stakes testing.  Yet it is simply too much to ask of an educator trying to teach children to read and perform mathematic computations, to be in a classroom without appropriate climate control, and to have to keep it clean throughout the week, and then to sacrifice safety, to accommodate an injured child.

She knew a couple of the newer teachers who were looking for positions in other local schools that were in better physical condition, but she was just too tired.  She would retire early.  Her plan had been to work a couple more years, but now she just didn’t feel she would have the energy.  She walked down the hall—picking up wadded papers along the way—and slipped her letter of resignation into her principal’s mailbox.  She would do her best to make it through the next two months.  She loved her second graders and she would miss them, but her bones ached from the cold and she didn’t have the energy to explain to parents why their students had to bundle up to sit in her classroom. 

There were many factors leading to her decision, but the one in the front of her mind was the physical condition of her classroom and the rest of the school. 

The story above is a fictional portrayal of actual situations I have personally witnessed or heard about from educators.  This scene, or ones close it, plays out all too often in school buildings around our nation.  We have a growing problem of teachers leaving the profession, and I propose that one factor is the increasing deterioration of the physical conditions in which they must work and teach.

Evidence shows that teachers in facilities that are in poor physical condition have more negative attitudes about their classrooms than teachers in good facilities (Earthman & Lemasters, 2009).  With over half of the schools in America in need of repairs to be in ‘good’ condition (NCES, 2014), a great number of teachers are working in suboptimal conditions.  Add to this the fact that if the school buildings are in poor shape there is often the companion problem of not having enough resources available, and frustration increases (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008).

Emphasis must be placed on maintaining learning spaces that are in acceptable condition and improving those that are not.  Investing in school buildings is one way to invest in the teachers that use the spaces (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2005).  Providing safe and healthy school environments may encourage educators to stay in their field.

References

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, DC. The Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1107-1123.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 323-335.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Condition of America’s public schools facilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf

Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55-73.

Angel Ford is a research associate with Education Facilities Clearinghouse, where she is actively involved in research and content management of the EFC Website.  She is also currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education with her dissertation topic  in the area of educational facilities.

Published on

By Linda Lemasters

Protecting our nation’s children in a time of global unrest is of utmost importance to parents, educators, and the community.  The thought of the physical safety of children immediately came to my mind a few evenings ago when the news from Paris came into our living rooms.  Though schools were not involved, it reminded me that schools at all levels should be vigilant and remain ready with comprehensive emergency operations and crisis management plans.  We hope we never need to initiate such operations and plans; however, we cannot permit ourselves to become complacent.  Reviewing steps to take should a threat come to light, resolving issues of information sharing, meeting with crisis management teams, considering when to involve law enforcement, and holding a review with all responders are actions that will further emergency preparedness and assist in creating safe school climates.

First and foremost, this planning is not only for K-12, but is also paramount for pre-schools through higher education.  Although we would like to think that crises would not happen to us, none of our schools—no matter what grade level—are immune.

Second, let’s review whether or not the plans are up-to-date and current.  One of the best ways to do that is to review the guides and resources provided by the various government websites (http://www.dhs.gov/school-safety).  USDoE, FEMA, REMS, and Homeland Security are some of the excellent resources.  Another is our Education Facilities Clearinghouse (http://www.efc.gwu.edu//).  Not only does the Clearinghouse provide a library of useful resources, it can provide technical assistance by experts to your school, district, or state.

Third, administrators should make sure that the person(s) responsible for crisis management and school security has (have) all of the plans and information at the ready.  Are procedures in place?  Does everyone have the materials and resources they need?  One way to assess that is to have a tabletop exercise concerning realistic threats.  These exercises assist in clarifying roles and responsibilities, identifying needs and solutions, developing agency relationships, assessing resources and capabilities, and evaluating the workability of your plan.  Some states require tabletop exercises; however, they are worthwhile for everyone.

Reflection and debriefing of the exercise is an integral part of the tabletop.  An evaluation by each participant should be required.  After creating a comprehensive report, it is time for revisions to the emergency operations plan to address any problems that were exposed during the exercise.  FEMA offers several examples of tabletops, which may be useful (http://www.fema.gov/emergency-planning-exercises).

The fourth step is the training and re-training of all staff and employees.  This is not simply the teachers in facilities—it is all employees.  Teachers, assistants, board members, clerical, custodial, food service, transportation, IT, and any other employees need to be included.  Processes should be reviewed; any questions must be answered.

Finally, students need to be involved.  This is a sensitive issue, as we do not want to create fear in our students; rather, we need to ensure that, by including students in the planning, we will assist in allaying their fears.  When conducting this step, it is important to remember that children and students of different ages respond differently—often by actions rather than words. Careful observation is necessary.

Providing adequate explanations of safety and crisis plans; watching for and responding to signs of stress, fear, or anxiety; reminding students that trustworthy people are in charge; and, reviewing processes and procedures to use in the event of an emergency are only a few of the ways we can assist in providing a feeling of safety and security for students.  The keys to all of this are training, readiness, and predictability.  Students of all ages need to know that there is consistency in plans and the reactions of people in charge will be those that put their safety first.

Have I provided all of the information and steps you should use to review your safety and crisis management plans?  Absolutely not!  What I hope you get from this blog, however, is to keep emergency planning in the foremost thoughts of your security employees.  Only when our students of all ages feel safe will they achieve their best.

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse

Linda is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of the George Washington University, where she advises students, directs student research, and directs a project at Taibah University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  Her areas of expertise and research include educational planning, facilities management, and women CEOs.  She actively conducts research concerning the effects of the facility on the student and teacher, publishes within her field, and has written or edited numerous books including School Maintenance & Renovation:  Administrator Policies, Practices, and Economics and book chapters including a recent chapter, Places Where Children Play, published July, 2014 in Marketing the Green School:  Form, Function, and the Future.

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.