Skip to content

Category: EFC Blogs

Published on

By T. R. Dunlap

The topics of outdoor learning and outdoor classrooms are trending in education conversation and research. Recently, there have been many articles in education and scientific journals as well as in popular magazines and websites on the many reasons schools should embrace outdoor learning. Outdoor learning is increasingly viewed as a powerful way to engage students in the educational experience and to foster a greater appreciation for the natural world. Schools have implemented the development of outdoor classrooms as one approach to embrace outdoor learning for their students. Researchers, educators, administrators, and facility managers are looking into how outdoor classrooms could provide a positive impact on student success. Here are three good reasons why your school should consider investing in an outdoor learning program and the building of an outdoor classroom.

  1. Outdoor Learning Positively Affects Physical Health

The need for and benefits of outdoor learning are frequently discussed in light of perceived health crises among American children. Here are just two examples of physical benefits outdoor learning may offer student.

First, outdoor learning gets students moving. The USA has a gathering storm from the factors of childhood malnutrition, obesity, and lack of physical activity. The average American child spends as few as 30 minutes playing outdoors each day (National Wildlife Federation), and many believe that our children are more inactive and obese than in previous generations. We need to get kids moving! Outdoor learning is a great way to provide students opportunity to move and explore and, hopefully, become healthier.

Second, outdoor learning reconnects kids with the power of ‘solar energy’. The sun has always held benefits for human development and health—of course, one must consider the need for sunscreen and proper hydration for the students. We are all aware of the need for vitamin D, which the sun provides to us naturally. Students who are stuck indoors during the school day can miss out on this very needed health benefit. In addition, natural light can help our kids see well. The natural light one experiences outdoors reduces the risk of nearsightedness. When compared to the lighting of our inside environments, there’s nothing quite like light of the natural world (Nutt, 2014). Outdoor classrooms are one way to capitalize on the physical advantages of outdoor learning.

  1. There are Cognitive Benefits to Outdoor Learning

Recently, there have been a number of articles on how outdoor learning can make kids smarter, improve children’s memory and attention, and even help kids with autism. We now know that children’s awareness, reasoning, and observational skills are improved in their cognitive development with an increased exposure to nature (Pyle, 2002). The cognitive advantage of outdoor learning is seen in academic performance. For example, children who have increased contact with the outdoors score higher on tests of concentration and self-discipline (Wells, 2000; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002). In an age of heightened pressure for student performance, why not consider using outdoor classrooms to bolster student learning and achievement?

  1. Outdoor Learning Helps the Socialization of Students

Finally, researchers have noted that outdoor learning leads to positive outcomes in students’ social development. Some have argued that nature stimulates social interaction between children much more than indoor learning environments (Bixler, Floyd, & Hammit, 2002). When learning outdoors, students work more collaboratively as they explore the natural world together. An outdoor classroom provides opportunities for students to interact and learn in new and different ways, and the social benefits should not be underestimated.

There are many other considerations that should be given to the implementation of outdoor learning programs in our schools, but the most obvious among them are the physical, cognitive, and social benefits of outdoor learning. As your school or district considers investing in or expanding an outdoor classroom, keep in mind the many advantages this type of education facility will have for your students.

 

T. R. Dunlap is a research assistant for George Washington University in the Education Facilities Clearinghouse. After having worked as a foreign language educator, he now researches topics relevant to education facilities and their improvements.

References:

Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. E. & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 795-818.

Ellis Nutt, A., ‘Go play outside, kids:’ Natural light reduces risk of nearsightedness in children, scientists say, (2014) The Washington Post Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/28/go-play-outside-kids-natural-light-reduces-risk-of-nearsightedness-in-children-scientists-say/.

Lieberman G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, Calif: State Education and Environment Roundtable.

National Wildlife Federation, Health benefits (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/what-we-do/kids-and-nature/why-get-kids-outside/health-benefits.aspx.

Pyle, R. (2002). Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species and kids in community of life. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations. Kahn, P.H. and Kellert, S.R. (eds) Cambridge: MIT Press.

Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.

Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature, effects of "greenness" on children's cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775-795.

 

 

Published on

By Allen Rathey and Gene Woodard

Gene Woodard, Director of the Building Services Department at the University of Washington (UW), believes in his staff of 249 custodians, and it shows in his shared leadership style.  His department has deployed 23 “Natural Work Teams” —each natural work team is supported by managers and supervisors—to provide continuously improving green cleaning to more than 11 million square feet of the main Seattle campus.

Two years ago, Building Services began launching three to four of these natural work teams each quarter.  The intent was to engage the frontline workers in a systematic process that encourages them to generate ideas that make the work more efficient.  The most effective solutions come from the people that are actually doing the work.  The natural work teams have established goals aligned with the department’s strategic objectives.

Separate project teams with representatives from across the campus tackle areas such as optimal cart design, best practices for white board cleaning, stairwell safety, and hiring.  Project based teams strive to achieve their set goals, usually within 90 days.  The department’s efforts to fine-tune efficiency have helped to counterbalance the 26% cumulative budget cut the department endured from 2007 through 2010.

Principle-Focused Leadership

Woodard, who has 30 years of experience at UW, and his Building Services leadership team are strong proponents of the “lean” Shingo Model (Shingo Institute, 2015) based on “cultural enablers” and other factors that foster organizational effectiveness, including:

  • Leading with Humility
  • Respecting Every Individual
  • Creating Constancy of Purpose

These leadership principles guide the decisions and actions of Woodard and his team.

Learning and Maturing

Woodard freely admits UW is just beyond the embryonic stage in developing this new culture.  “We are infants striving to grow in a systematic way to foster engagement and continuous process improvement, while eliminating wasteful activities and improving the work.”

“Improving the work is the work,” Woodard adds. “It’s an ongoing process requiring the leaders and team members to continuously learn and mature in its application.  It is a rewarding leadership style that relinquishes power to the teams and promotes mutual engagement around a common strategy.”  Woodard explains, “We focus on being strategic, standardizing best practices, and not just putting out fires.”

Mission and Facilities Services Framework

The UW Building Services Department’s Mission Statement is:  “We provide cleaning and waste reduction services through innovation and dedication.”  Their Vision Statement is: “A highly engaged organization promoting a clean, healthy and sustainable community.”

A Facilities Services Framework creates focus in four main areas:

  1. Delivering Results at the Top
  2. Enabling Actions
  3. Guiding Principles
  4. Foundational Values

Woodard and his departmental leadership team—Scott Spencer, Sattia Sear, and Emily Newcomer—set strategic objectives and use a balanced scorecard to track progress using green, yellow, and red icons for visual accountability, with the ultimate aim to reach the Shingo Bronze Level (Shingo Institute, 2015).  Woodard acknowledges it may take years to achieve this goal.

Coaching and Support

Supporting teams through constancy of follow-up is central to the work of the leadership team. The four department leaders strive to each visit four teams a week (16 of 23 teams per week is the goal).

Woodard, his department leaders, and natural work teams also receive regular coaching from Mike Martyn the founder of SISU Consulting Group as well as Mark McKenzie, Finance and Facilities Lean Program Manager Woodard emphasizes, “Building leaders and coaches—supporting, guiding and assessing teams, while also being guided and coached—is key to our program.”

Enduring, Diverse Workforce

Woodard speaks proudly of his workforce, citing:

  • More than half of the Building Services’ team members have been at UW for more than 15 years.
  • 10 of the 17 departmental leaders were promoted from within.
  • Staff is comprised of 18 nationalities.
  • There are nearly equal numbers of male and female workers.

It’s Working

UW’s Building Services teams have been recognized nationally for their stand-out green cleaning program by earning the Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities Grand Award for Higher Education in 2007, the Co-Grand Award in 2010, and the Grand Award for Higher Education in 2014 (American School & University, 2015).  The momentum has not let up.  Over the last 12 months, Woodard’s teams have generated 669 ideas and have implemented 362 new ideas for continued improvement of cleaning processes at UW.  Six to eight more natural work teams will launch in January 2016.

References

American School & University. (2015). Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities. Retrieved from http://asumag.com/green-cleaning-award

Shingo Institute. (2015). Retrieved from http://shingo.org

Shingo Institute. (2015). Shingo Institute Recognition. Retrieved from http://shingo.org/challengefortheprize.html

 

Allen Rathey is President of the Healthy Facilities Institute (HFI) and Executive Director of the 501c3 Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools (PC4HS).  Call him at 208-724-1508.

Gene Woodard has been part of the University of Washington for 30 years and serves as Director of the Building Services Department (BSD), which manages the Custodial Services and UW Recycling. He is a (Master) Registered Executive Housekeeper and member of the International Executive Housekeeping Association (IEHA). He served as IEHA President from 2000—2002. Gene is a 2012 recipient of IEHA’s William D. Joyner Achievement Award and a contributing writer for Executive Housekeeping Today. He serves on the board of the Healthy Facilities Institute (HFI) and is a member of the Green School Leadership Council with the Healthy School Campaign.   Gene is also a speaker on custodial operations and leadership topics.

Published on

By Allen Rathey, Keith Webb, and E. M. Wallace.

What prompts school facilities to get on board with green cleaning programs? The answers vary. For some the decision may be driven by health impact, environmental stewardship, or simply compliance.

Keith Webb, Executive Director of Plant Services, Newport News Public Schools (NNPS), Newport News, Virginia, is pleased that the NNPS cleaning program, under Custodial Supervisor Marcella Bullock, received the Green Cleaning Award for Schools and Universities’ Grand–level recognition in 2013 (American School & University, 2015), but he admits achieving this green milestone took many years and got its start through the “back door”.

“When I first started in 2007, I did nothing but observe,” Webb notes. “I saw we were overstaffed and using ineffective tools—such as cloth-bag upright vacuums, mop buckets with wringers for hard floor care, and lots of cleaning chemical—so our ‘front door’ focus was on right-sizing, efficiency and leaning operations.”

This meant eliminating about 50 FTEs—through attrition rather than layoffs—and diverting a sizable sum of money to purchase leading-edge equipment and supplies, including:

  • Backpack-style vacuums—Worn by the operator using a mountaineering-style harness balancing the approximate 10-lb. weight on the hips, and clean about two times the space that an upright-vacuum process can in the same amount of time (ISSA, 2015).
  • HEPA-filtered upright vacuums—Newer upright vacuums with proven performance, bodies that do not leak dust and filters that trap fine particles (Carpet and Rug Institute, 2015).
  • Engineered-Water Auto Scrubbers—Cordless, powered, and quiet (‘green-rated’ under 70db) (LEED, 2015) floor cleaning machines that, equipped with an electrolysis system, can generate onboard cleaning solution from facility water supplies, scrub, and dry (vacuum/squeegee) floors much faster than mopping and with better results (ISSA, 2015).
  • Wall-mounted onsite-generated engineered-water solutions—Produce a cleaning and sanitizing solution onsite using electrolysis of tap water for use in sprayers and other applications (Healthy Schools Campaign, 2015).

Embracing ionized water for cleaning reduced the use of harsher cleaning chemicals by 99%. The resultant cost savings on chemicals helped fund movement toward additional sustainable practices, such as purchasing recycled-content paper and other products. Adding a recycling program to reduce waste has saved the district about $120,000 a year in refuse removal costs.

Training was a key component to NNPS’s evolution to a green program. The value of a green mindset was infused while training custodial staff to use new equipment and products and to improve cleaning methods and standards. 100% of NNPS’ facilities reached the APPA Level 2 cleanliness benchmark. The investment in training and accountability has led to enhanced recognition, performance, and professionalism of custodial staff. (Read more about this in EFC’s 9/17/15 blog.)

Over time, Mr. Webb realized NNPS’s cleaning had “gone green” in a large way, albeit accidentally, by redirecting resources to improving department operations, methods and training that at the same time produced a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment. Green cleaning meshes with the values that underpin the work of NNPS’s Plant Services. First, the program supports the academic agenda by keeping the learning environment clean and safe for both students and staff; it also illustrates the value placed on people by creating a safer, more pleasant work environment for employees and providing them opportunities for professional growth.

Whatever the impetus to ‘go green’, Webb advises peers to start with a single innovation, phase in different green approaches over time, and maintain a long view. “Be patient, it takes time. Consider the life cycle return on investments in staff, equipment, and products and don’t just go with the least expensive upfront option.”

Green cleaning is a WIN-WIN for students, staff, schools, community, and the environment. Perhaps it matters less where schools start that journey, but that they do indeed begin to embrace it.

References

American School & University. (2015). Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities. Retrieved from American School & University: http://asumag.com/green-cleaning-award

Carpet and Rug Institute. (2015). Seal of Approval for Vacuums. Retrieved from Carpet and Rug Institute: https://www.carpet-rug.org/CRI-Testing-Programs/CRI-Seal-of-Approval-Program/Vacuums.aspx

Healthy Schools Campaign. (2015). Green Clean Schools Leadership Summit. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/od8vd2m

ISSA. (2015). 612 Cleaning Times. Retrieved from http://www.issa.com/education/bookstore/612-cleaning-times-book.html#.Ven3p_Rdfq4

U.S. Green Building Council. (2015). LEED EBOM Version 4. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/credits/eq31

 

Allen Rathey is President of the Healthy Facilities Institute (HFI) and Executive Director of the 501c3 Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools (PC4HS). Call him at 208-724-1508.

Keith Webb is Executive Director of Plant Services for Newport News Public Schools, a 29,000- student school division in southeastern Virginia. In that capacity he oversees construction, renovation, maintenance, energy management and custodial operations of the division’s 72 buildings. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he joined NNPS as Assistant Maintenance Supervisor, eventually rising to his current position.

In 2011 his department earned the prestigious Facility Masters Award at the Platinum level from National School Plant Managers Association in conjunction with the Virginia School Plant Managers Association. In 2012 Keith earned his Educational Facility Professional designation from APPA. In 2013 NNPS received the Grand Award for the greenest cleaning K-12 school division nationally from American School & University magazine and the Healthy Schools Campaign. Facility Cleaning Decisions magazine named him a Manager of Distinction in 2015.

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 health and wellbeing.

Published on

By G. Victor Hellman, Jr., Ed.D.

The broader one's understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have. – Steve Jobs

Public school facilities in the United States are at a critical crossroads.  The days of designing and building schools with the traditional double-stacked corridor are fading into history.  Long gone are the single classroom schools where all students assembled for instruction.  Today’s educational vocabulary refers to 21st century learning centers, community schools, school-within-a-school models and virtual schools.  These examples are but a few of the different descriptors used to refer to the facilities that are being built today.  What do these different descriptors mean, and do they appropriately describe facility needs for today’s students?  How do we design facilities to maximize the likelihood that all students will have an equal opportunity to succeed?  It is my contention that a variety of factors should be considered when designing a new learning facility.  Importance should be placed on evidence-based features, and, in addition, careful consideration should be given to the fact that no two children learn in the same way.

The research indicating that school facilities have an effect on achievement and learning outcomes continues to grow.  Likewise, the literature on the deterioration of America’s public schools has expanded.  In an October 2014 report, the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) reported that the amount of deferred maintenance for American public schools is between $271 billion and $542 billion depending on if the division uses a 50- or 25-year amortization of the building life cycle.  The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported in 2014 that 53% of public schools were in need of repairs or renovations in order to bring the facilities up to good condition.  Drilling down in the report reveals that 32% of the facilities need to improve window systems; 31% need to improve plumbing systems; 30% need modernizations in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC); 25% need improvements to roofs, interior finishes, and internal communication systems; and, 21% need to improve their technology infrastructure.  With public school facilities in such need, where is the call to action?  How can we expect children to learn when we do not provide them with a facility that meets the basic standards we expect from our workplace or home?

If the research indicates that our public schools are deteriorating, do we not want to spend our limited dollars in the most appropriate areas to ensure all students have an equal opportunity for success?  In a recent meta-analysis commissioned by the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, researcher Kenneth Tanner concluded some important facts for designers to consider when designing or renovating a school facility.  Highlights of his findings indicate:

  • (t)here is a statistically significant link between natural light in classrooms with views and student achievement. (p.29)
  • (s)afety and security measures … have a statistically significant impact on student outcomes. (p. 31)
  • (t)he design family of quiet places and spaces for reflection has a statistically significant influence on student outcomes. (p. 34)
  • (g)reen spaces … have a statistically positive impact on student outcomes. (p. 35)
  • Ample state-of-the-art technology for teachers and students makes a statistically significant contribution to student achievement. (p. 38)
  • The overall impression of a school facility covers all the design patterns … and influences student outcomes significantly. (p. 43)

Tanner’s meta-analysis provides valuable insight for school administrators and designers as they contemplate designs for new facilities and renovations of existing facilities.  Evidence-based designs help ensure that all students will have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Designers also must strive to accommodate differing learning styles and preferences.  Howard Gardner’s research on multiple intelligences and different learning styles helped educators to understand that not all children learn in the same way.  Other differentiated learning style models exist and explain how to optimize learning.  One such model is the Dunn and Dunn learning style model (Rundle, n.d.).  Dunn and Dunn define learning styles as the way individuals learn new and difficult information.  Their model has 28 different elements across five domains.  Learners strongly or moderately can prefer or not prefer an element, or may be in the middle with their preference to an element.  To illustrate how the different elements impact learning style, let’s look at lighting.  Lighting is an element contained within the environmental domain.  Some students prefer brightly lit areas while others prefer soft, dim lighting.  As a designer for a new learning center, consideration must be given to providing spaces that accommodate both of these learning styles.  Students will tend to gravitate to the amount of lighting consistent with their learning style preference.  Areas of bright natural light as well as areas that are not so bright should be available in order to accommodate the variety of learning styles regarding light. Other environmental elements include sound, temperature, and seating.  Similar variety or flexibility of design should be provided for these elements.

This blog has highlighted the declining condition of America’s public schools as well as provided evidence-based factors that should be considered when designing new facilities or renovations.  More importantly, it has provided insight into the multiple learning styles that today’s education facilities must be able to serve.  As previously stated, it does not matter if we call our facility a 21st century learning center, a community school, or a school-within-a-school.  The facility must have design features for all learning styles and incorporate flexible spaces.  Without these design features, we are not giving all students an equal opportunity to succeed.

 

Resources:

Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS). (2014). Reversing the cycle of deterioration in the nation’s public school buildings. www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/ FacilitiesReport2014.pdf.

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

Rundle, S. (n.d.). Building excellence – effective environments inspire minds to dream more and become more! [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://media.cefpi.org/pacificnorthwest/alaska/AK08BuildingExcellence.pdf

Tanner, C. K. (2015). Effects of school architectural designs on students’ accomplishments: a meta-analysis. Retrieved from the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/effects-of-school-architectural-designs-on-studentsaccomplishments-a-meta-analysis/

 

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.

Published on

By Allen Rathey.

Keith Webb, Executive Director of Plant Services, Newport News Public Schools (NNPS), Newport News, Virginia, oversees construction, renovation, and operations for the district’s 30,000 students, served by 5 early childhood centers, 24 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, 5 high schools, 1 middle/high combination school, and 9 program sites.

NNPS received the 2013 Grand-level Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities (Sponsored by American School & University magazine, The Green Cleaning Network and the Healthy Schools Campaign), an accomplishment made possible by the custodial team under the direction of Webb’s Custodial Supervisor, Marcella Bullock (American School & University, 2015).

Their secret?  Invest in people through training to improve life skills and professional skills and to foster improved work quality, program cost-effectiveness, worker retention and upward mobility.

In 2015, this is modeled through a pilot cohort of 15 entry-level workers in a state-approved apprenticeship and certification program under the auspices of Thomas Nelson Community College, featuring Custodial Technician I and II levels, a program customized and developed in-house (Virginia Department of Industry and Labor, 2015; Thomas Nelson Community College, 2015).

Line workers completing the Custodial Technician I program get a 3.5% pay raise after year one, and another 3.5% after completion of Custodial Technician II in year two.  The 7% is in addition to annual raises for all employees.

Building and Keeping the “Seven-Percenters”

“We give beginners an opportunity to attend college for free, so to speak,” noted Webb.  Webb also stated, “Thomas Nelson Community College is the State of Virginia’s representative, requiring syllabi and lesson plans within a state-sanctioned program, and they provide qualified teachers when instructional needs are beyond what NNPS can provide internally.”

Year one courses include math and English proficiency, using computers and the Internet for research, computer management of work orders, green cleaning and, overall, teaching the “behaviors of successful people,” notes Webb.

Annual coursework consists of 144 hours of classroom time, followed by 2,000 hours of fieldwork under the mentoring of custodial leads and/or area supervisors.

Graduates receive a handsome certificate of completion from the Commonwealth of Virginia in addition to “college-attendee” prestige and receive pay incentives based on meeting defined standards.

“We are big on expectations, and we make them clear,” adds Webb.   “The goal is to train and retain workers by building them up personally and professionally, providing attractive pay-raise incentives based on learning and skill milestones, and getting them involved in continuing education as they matriculate out of the two-year program.”

Mr. Webb expects Thomas Nelson Community College to provide continuing education credit opportunities for those who complete the two-year curricula.  “We expect this program will not only improve our green cleaning program and make our schools healthier, but lower our turnover and retraining costs, as 20% of new employee wages go toward getting them trained and prepared,” he notes.

As employees stay longer with better training, they can advance to leadership positions if desired.  Senior-level custodial staff members receive management level training via Cleaning Management Institute’s basic and advanced programs, with bonuses tied to course completion (Cleaning Management Institute, 2015).

When schools invest in a sound learning culture and standardized training becomes embedded, it fosters continuous improvement, personal and professional development for all team members, and improved facility outcomes.  Investment in the custodial workforce improves service and is a key ingredient of making school facilities cleaner, safer, and healthier.

Quick Facts

Apprenticeship Training Program for Custodial Technicians

A partnership between Newport News Public Schools (NNPS), Thomas Nelson Community College, and the Commonwealth of Virginia

Purpose

Ensure the professional development of the Custodial Services employees by providing relevant education and on-the-job training

Benefits to Custodial Staff

  • Advanced knowledge and skills
  • On-the-job training
  • Industry certification
  • Increased pay for higher level of skills
  • Potential for career advancement

How it Works for Maximum Results

Incorporates classroom and field Instruction, performance monitoring, and financial incentives

  • 144 hours of classroom training per each certificate course – conducted at the local community college, a vocational technical center, or at a NNPS facility
  • 2,000 hours of on-the-job training with a highly skilled mentor
  • Recommendation from a Senior Custodian, Lead Custodian II, and Custodial Area Supervisor
  • Satisfactory performance evaluation
  • 5% salary increase and a title of Custodial Technician I (with a Certificate of Completion) for successful completion of Year 1 program

An additional 3.5% salary increase and a title of Custodial Technician II (with a Certificate of Completion) for successful completion of Year 2 program

References

  • American School & University. (2015). Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities. Retrieved from American School & University: http://asumag.com/green-cleaning-award
  • Cleaning Management Institute. (2015). Custodial Technician Training Program. Retrieved from Cleaning Management Institute (CMI): http://www.cminstitute.net/custodial-technician-training-program
  • Thomas Nelson Community College (2015). Thomas Nelson Apprenticeships. Retrieved from Thomas Nelson: http://tncc.edu/workforce/business/apprenticeships
  • Virginia Department of Labor and Industry. (2015). Virginia Registered Apprenticeship. Retrieved from http://www.doli.virginia.gov/apprenticeship/registered_apprenticeship.html

Allen Rathey is President of the Healthy Facilities Institute (HFI) and Executive Director of the 501c3 Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools (PC4HS).  Call him at 208-724-1508.

Keith Webb is Executive Director of Plant Services for Newport News Public Schools, a nearly 30,000-student school division in southeastern Virginia.  In that capacity, he oversees construction, renovation, maintenance, energy management and custodial operations of the division’s 72 buildings.  In 2011 his department earned the prestigious Facility Masters Award at the Platinum level from National School Plant Managers Association in conjunction with the Virginia School Plant Managers Association.  Keith earned his Educational Facility Professional designation from APPA in 2012.  Facility Cleaning Decisions magazine named him a Manager of Distinction in 2015.

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters.

While writing the blog last week on the achievement gap, I read a great deal of research on urban education and inner city schools.  Education in rural America is mentioned often as an afterthought.  There is little knowledge of failing schools and children in need across sparsely populated farmlands, mountains, and deserts (Wang, 2014).  A few researchers are very vocal about problems of education reform in rural areas, and suggest more research is needed.  Until that happens there will be a limited awareness of facts and concerns about resources, programs, school buildings, and ultimately achievement in rural schools; and, education reform will be thwarted and limited.  The following are facts about rural education, which can jump-start our discussion:

  • One third of rural American schools have low-income students, low achievement on standardized tests, and low rates for college attendance (Rees, 2014).
  • Rural communities are generally small with a low local tax base, resulting in inadequate funding for schools.
  • Rural schools serve over 40% of U.S. students, yet receive only 22% of federal funding.
  • “. . . Students in rural communities are likelier than their peers to live in poverty and only 27% go on to college” (Rees, 2014).
  • Rural areas suffer a critical shortage of teachers, often employing teachers who are not licensed in the subjects they teach (Wang, 2014).
  • Based on USDoED statistics, reading and math scores in rural districts are as low or lower than those in urban districts (Biddle, 2011).
  • Graduation rates for poor and minority students who attended and/or graduated from rural high schools during the 2005-2006 school year were the same as the urban districts.Based on available research and anecdotal evidence, schools attended by low-income students have major deficiencies compared with those used by their richer peers.  Although there has not been a nation-wide survey for nearly 20 years, available state data suggest there is a nexus between the condition of schools, the number of low-income students attending schools, and their achievement.

In 2009, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted an enrollment and building capacity study (Yan).  Some of the findings of this work included:

  • Rural schools in general were older than their counterparts in the suburbs and cities, both in real and functional age.
  • Respondents from schools with functional ages of 15 years or more were more likely to note roofs, foundations, and walls as unsatisfactory, poor, or borderline.
  • Older schools typically had worse building safety conditions and often reported fire alarms, smoke detectors, and sprinkler systems in poor condition. Emergency lighting was rated as borderline.
  • Building energy efficiency was reported as poor or borderline in older facilities.
  • Building accessibility, handicapped accessibility, student drop-off areas, and vehicular ingress and egress were often rated poor or borderline in the older schools.

Arkansas, Virginia, Washington, DC., North Dakota, and other states also have been the topic of similar studies.  Dewees and Earthman’s (2000) research on rural schools noted that it was not unusual that rural students attend schools over 100 years old.  The Educational Facilities Clearinghouse has fielded calls from rural areas that report problems due to deferred maintenance and bond issues, which have been voted down numerous times.  The vote by the community may or may not be due to lack of support for the local schools; it may be a lack of income on the part of the voters or the low assessed value of local real estate.  In contrast, school age of urban schools is improving, and funds to build new urban schools are more available through local or state support or in some instances federal dollars.

Finally, I request you review the EdBuild student poverty map (Click here http://maps.edbuild.org/Dividing Lines.html#).  You can click on any of the pink to dark pink areas to see the population, student population, student poverty population, and student poverty rate.  Do you note that many rural areas have high rates of poverty?  Do you recognize that areas of poverty are in the midst of prosperous districts?

After analyzing the EdBuild map, take a look and compare the map of cities, towns, suburbs, and rural areas.  Pictorially note the rural areas (fringe, distant, and remote); many times they are in the heart of areas of poverty (NCES).

It would be negligent should I not mention that rural schools do produce students who achieve, many rural schools have small class sizes, and students are able to take advanced coursework by making use of distance learning and technology.  What I want to be recognized, however, is that rural schools often face the same challenges as our urban schools.  When it comes to research and funding, their needs must be recognized, if education reform is going to be successful in all of our united states.

Figure 1:  Student Poverty and School District Borders (Click here http://maps.edbuild.org/DividingLines.html# for interactive map)

Picture1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EdBuild (2015).

 

Picture2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Source : U.S. Census Bureau; Urban-centric Locale Codes, developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

References and Resources

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.

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters.

In 1973 Thurgood Marshall wrote the dissenting opinion in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez:

It is an inescapable fact that if one district has more funds available per pupil than another district, the former will have greater choice in educational planning than will the latter. In this regard, I believe the question of discrimination in educational quality must be deemed to be an objective one that looks to what the State provides its children, not to what the children are able to do with what they receive. That a child forced to attend an underfunded school with poorer physical facilities [emphasis added], less experienced teachers, larger classes, and a narrower range of courses than a school with substantially more funds—and thus with greater choice in educational planning—may nevertheless excel is to the credit of the child, not the State. Indeed, who can ever measure for such a child the opportunities lost and the talents wasted for want of a broader, more enriched education?

Though written 42 years ago, we continue to face many of the same disparities. I wrote about educational disparities a few months ago, but I would like to be more specific in my concerns. As a college professor in educational leadership, hardly a day goes by that an article, a conference announcement, an email, or a piece of research comes across my desk about the achievement gap. The gap is a real detriment to our country with a waste of talent, and immeasurable in its affect on our society.

In the same articles, email, or research, varied solutions are proposed. Nearly all of them go back to the genesis of teaching, leadership, technology, supplies, class size, and/or many other suggestions, and some, if not all, of these factors may be interrelated. Sad to say, there is only a small group of educators in America who relate some of the achievement gap to where our children learn. There is even a more select group that conducts research relating the gap to the condition of the schools. The schools in most need of repair are often those who report lower overall achievement scores. These schools are found in the poor areas of our cities, towns, and rural districts and are disproportionately attended by severe low-income and minority students.

The question is: Are these facilities contributing to the achievement gap? The Education Facilities Clearinghouse recently commissioned C. Kenneth Tanner, Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, to conduct a meta-analysis of effects of school design on student success. He was able to identify best practices in schools and school design:

  • Safety and security measures, as defined by Tanner’s meta-analysis, have a statistically significant impact on student outcomes.

Students need to feel free from gangs, hunger, intruders, violence, social disparities, and persecution. As Maslow’s hierarchy indicates, humans need to feel secure and have a sense of belonging, safety, and confidence. Have you noted inner city schools in which the very physical setting alarmed your sense of safety and security?

  • Quiet places and spaces for reflection have a statistically significant influence on student outcomes.

Students need places that make them feel they are needed and belong in the school environment. Again, Maslow wrote about self-actualization and its dependence on both belonging and a place for reflection. All children need small personal learning spaces, alcoves to read, and small group spaces for interaction in safe, dry, and clean facilities. In poorly funded districts, overcrowding and inadequate facility maintenance are more often the reality.

  • Color is statistically significant in its effect on student achievement.

Tanner (2015) wrote: “Color patterns throughout the facility can influence motivation. Hot colors encourage students to become more physically active, while cool colors tend to convey a reassuring effect.” If you have not seen them personally, think about the school facility pictures you have seen where the paint is so old, dull, and peeled you cannot even tell what color it is. Sad to say, students affected by the achievement gap often are relegated to these rundown schools.

  • Ample state-of-the-art technology for teachers and students makes a statistically significant contribution to student achievement.

It is impossible for the educator to know how teaching and learning will be influenced by technology in the future; however, are students in our less wealthy districts being afforded the same technological opportunities as students in the more wealthy districts? How can we expect the same outcomes without the same opportunities; i.e., computers to take home (iPads, Chromebooks, or other handheld devices), computer labs, and teachers knowledgeable about technology and how to use it as a learning and teaching tool?

These are only four of Tanner’s statistically significant findings. In total he identified twelve findings and fifteen best practices. All fifteen classifications in his research are postulated to have positive effects on student outcomes. I encourage you to read his research and ask yourself the question: Are your schools providing equal facilities to all children? Or, are there inequities that may contribute to the achievement gap?

As noted a few paragraphs ago, Marshall spoke of poor school facilities over four decades ago. He did not call it the achievement gap, but he spoke of opportunities lost and talents wasted. We can debate how to solve the problem, and discussion is needed. The school facility, however, is a “fixable” component of improving student achievement. Why are so many schools districts across the nation not enabled to improve the places where our students learn—especially for the minority and low-income students most affected by the achievement gap?

References and Resources:

Ballenger, K. A. (2014). The grave disparities in modern education, segregation, and school budgeting: A comparison between Brown v. Board of Education and San Antonio Independent School System District v. Rodriguez. Knoxville, TN: Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange.

Lacoe, J. (2013, March). Too scared to learn? The academic consequences of feeling unsafe at school. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy (IESP). Retrieved on August 7, 2015 from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/ggg5/Working_Paper_02-13.pdf

Martorell, P., McFarlin, Jr., I., & Stange, K. (2014, December). Investing in schools: Capital spending, facility conditions, and student achievement. Retrieved from Federal Reserve Bank of New York on August 7, 2015: http://m.newyorkfed.org/research/education_seminar_series/Stange.pdf

Service Employees International Union. (n.d.). Falling further apart: Decaying schools in New York City’s Poorest Neighborhoods. Retrieved on August 7, 2015: http://www.seiu32bj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/falling-further-apart1.pdf

Smith, C. D. (2014). Continued disparities in school facilities: Analyzing Brown v. Board of Education’s singular approach to quality education. Tennessee Journal of Race, Gender, & Social Justice, 3(1), p. 38-66.

Tanner, C. K. (2015). Effects of school architectural designs on students’ Accomplishments: An meta-analysis. Retrieved from the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) on August 17, 2015: http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/effects-of-school-architectural-designs-on-students-accomplishments-a-meta-analysis/

Vincent, J. M., & Filardo, M. W. (2008, June). Linking school construction investments to equity, smart growth, and healthy communities. Retrieved from Center for Cities & Schools (CC&S) and Building Educational Success Together (BEST) on August 7, 2015: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/Vincent_Filardo_2008_Linking_School_Construction_Jun2008.pdf

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.

Published on

By Greg Smith, Project Manager, Brailsford & Dunlavey, and Dr. Debra Henson, Executive Director of Facilities Management, Dekalb County School District.

 

Planning for the future is often done in a rear view mirror we plan based on what we know and create based on our own personal experiences, education, and expectations. So how can we, as educational facilities leaders and professionals, create an environment that delivers education in a way that resembles real world learning/working environments as they exist now and as they will exist in the future? The need to prepare students for a workplace that no longer operates in an industrial economic fashion, as it once did, is critical in order to ensure the next generation is ready for a new economy and workplace. As we enter this transformational phase in K-12 education and strive to prepare students for this new reality, we are challenged to determine the most beneficial capital improvement investments that incorporate new 21st century learning components.

American schools, designed around a standard learning environment that supports a lecture style of teaching, have remained relatively unchanged for the last 50 years while we have evolved into a society of visual and tactile learners.  “Show me,” “interact with me,” “don’t just speak at me,” this is what our students ask of us. The critical components of learning that allow the modern student to effectively engage with educators and fellow students alike are the foundation for environments that encourage the four C’s:  critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration.    This new model of education that focuses on engaging with students in a variety of ways is referred to as 21st century learning and the supporting facilities are 21st century learning environments.

Technology is often considered the catalyst for identifying 21st century spaces and its importance cannot be overrated.  It is a tool, a resource that aids in the learning process and links real world platforms to PK-16 educational environments.  But it is only a tool.

So what defines these 21st century learning environments? The words we most often use are flexible, agile, and adaptable, words that ultimately mean being able to adjust to new conditions, modify for a new use or purpose, and allow flexibility to engage students in a variety of ways. The 21st century learning environments respond, not react, to individual learning styles, teaching styles, and a variety of educational paradigms, including new Common Core standards.  Educational facilities, similarly, need to respond to the needs of students, teachers, and community—form follows function—and provide a variety of opportunities for students to experience authentic interaction with real world involvement.

But how can we make informed capital investment decisions on adaptable learning environments? The practice of “evidence-based design” helps connect the relationship school facilities have with their impact on learning.  As we continue to advance the research and examine what has been done in traditional schools and classrooms in planning and delivering 21st century learning, it will become increasingly imperative to understand the drivers responsible for different educational outcomes and create an effective physical framework for making capital improvement decisions that consider risk tolerances.

The Dekalb County School District (DCSD) is currently implementing construction of approximately $500 million in capital improvements under their special-purpose-local-option sales tax (SPLOST) IV Program.  A primary focus of the program is how to best incorporate 21st century learning concepts into their facilities. One of the key challenges arising from this focus has been bringing its aging elementary schools into the 21st century while maintaining a balance with traditional education.  DCSD is designing and constructing seven new prototypical elementary schools to replace some of the schools that are aged and in need of replacement. The project’s architect laid out some of the decisions made in order to achieve traditional education environments while also advancing their schools with new 21st century learning elements. He explained the three primary design decisions that the district made. First, they decided to incorporate 8-12 “flex spaces” that are smaller than classrooms and available for use in a variety of ways ranging from teacher meetings to student groups to specialized smaller learning sessions. These spaces will allow DCSD to maintain traditional classrooms as the primary learning environments while giving them the flexibility for collaborative learning or other uses, as needed. The second decision made was to incorporate an outdoor amphitheater in the prototype design. This option allows the schools to have outdoor classes, presentations, or group-based projects. And third, DCSD is currently working toward replacing the existing classroom furniture that combines the chair and the desk into one unit with separate mobile chairs and tables that allow teachers to be flexible in classroom set-ups. Rather than having student desks in rows for a lecture-oriented class, as is the case with the chair-and-desk combination unit, the new furniture can be set up in several ways to support different class activities.

America’s schools must continue to take these initial steps to evolve its schools and prepare students for the new economy. This, of course, means that facility planners must continue striving to identify drivers that produce the educational outcomes schools seek for their students, ones that help owners make informed capital improvement decisions to achieve a new targeted reality. There is much we continue to learn about transforming our K-12 schools into adaptable and flexible spaces and careful capital planning is as important now as it has ever been.  Maybe more so.

Printable Blog

Contact authors

grsmith@programmanagers.com
debra_henson@dekalbschoolsga.org

Brailsford & Dunlavey is a program management firm with comprehensive in-house planning capabilities, dedicated to serving educational institutions, municipalities, public agencies, and nonprofit clients from offices throughout the U.S.

Published on

By Bill Blumenthal, VP, PC4HS.

When launching an upgrade to your school’s cleaning program, consider starting by cleaning up your ‘cleaning’ products to reduce unnecessary chemical use. In many cases, your custodial crew and teaching staff can reduce or eliminate many cleaning chemicals—such as those with fragrances—without sacrificing effective cleaning.

To ensure that what you do use is ‘greener,’ choose products certified by Green Seal’s GS-37 or UL Environment’s Ecologo or those products having EPA’s Safer Choice label, for example. In some circumstances, an EPA-registered disinfectant might be needed as the lesser of two evils (pathogens vs. harsh germicidal chemicals).

There are sound reasons to use less cleaning chemistry.

Less Toxic, Disruptive Chemistry = Greater Health

Endocrine Disruptors (EDs), found in many common cleaning and maintenance products, are chemicals that act like hormones in humans and wildlife. EDs can also be produced by reactions related to product ingredients, such as when terpenes react with air pollution to create formaldehyde. EDs are often active in parts-per-billion, thus the “dose makes the poison” rule may not apply. Tiny amounts of EDs can have a big effect on body function and some may cause cancer (DHHS, 2014).

Ingredients such as bleach, quats, phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cleaning or disinfecting products are suspected to cause or aggravate respiratory ills such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Asthma is the number one chronic cause of student absenteeism in schools. One out of every 10 school-aged children has asthma, resulting in more than 10 million missed school days per year (EPA, 2013). Ingredients in common cleaning products may worsen asthma (Vizcaya et al., 2015).

Breathing easier at school can improve performance of students, teachers, and staff. Thankfully, reducing or eliminating exposure to hazardous cleaning chemicals can enhance both health and the bottom line.

Less Harsh Chemistry = More Money

School funding is often based on attendance, so reducing triggers for asthma and other respiratory conditions may improve attendance and fiscal support. Elk Grove Unified schools (CA) reported a two-percent attendance gain associated with implementation of green cleaning according to a Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) report (RAMP, 2009). Eliminating aerosols and hazardous products in a Pennsylvania school district saved $19,883.25 annually according to American School and University magazine (Shideler, 2001).

The switch to more benign ingredients in green-certified cleaning products can save money in other ways too. Major green certifications require cleaning products be purchased as concentrates to reduce packaging and carbon-intensive transport of water. Dispensing concentrated solutions via automatic dilution systems reduces the added costs associated with ready-to-use (RTU) products.

Less Dirty Chemistry = More Time, Safety

If not thoroughly rinsed from surfaces, ‘cleaning’ chemicals can actually make surfaces dirtier by leaving residues. Many residues are also biodegradable, which means they may harbor microbes that feed on residues. Removing residues is additional work and wastes time. Nonchemical interventions—such as dry steam vapor sanitation, microfiber and water programs, spray-and-vacuum systems, and other reduced-chemistry methods—may be safer cleaning alternatives that also save time.

To illustrate the benefits of one of these nonchemical interventions, consider the microfiber and water method. Microfiber cloths or mops consist of ultrafine synthetic strands, commonly polyester or polyester-polyamide blends. Microfiber cleaning cloths and mops cost more than cotton cloths or mops but are often more economical due to inherent durability and performance traits. For instance, woven microfiber (sometimes called “split microfiber”) captures particles and moisture better than cotton terry towels, without producing lint.

In many cases, microfiber cloths and mops can clean using just tap water and a mild neutral-pH cleaner, if needed. Utilizing microfiber and water instead of harsher cleaning chemicals reduces negative chemical impacts and purchasing, transport, storage, inventory, and disposal costs.

Less Unwanted Chemistry = Cleaner Environment

What is not brought into your school or classroom will not have to be removed later. Avoid the introduction of unnecessary chemical cleaners into schools. A cleaner, healthier school environment can be achieved with less cost, freeing up resources for better teaching and learning.

Printable Blog

 

References

Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). (2009). Breathing Easier − School Districts Make the Switch to Certified Green Cleaning Products. Retrieved from http://www.rampasthma.org/wp-content/upload s/2009/11/Breathing-Easier-Report.pdf

Shideler, L. (2001). A Clean School is a Healthy School. American School & University. Retrieved from http://asumag.com/maintenance-amp-operations/clean-school-healthy-school?page=4

United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), (2014). 13th Report on Carcinogens. Retrieved from http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/index.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). EPA Asthma Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_fact_sheet_en.pdf

Vizcaya, D., Mirabelli, M. C., Gimeno, D., Antó, J. M., Delclos, G. L., Rivera, M., ... & Zock, J. P. (2015). Cleaning products and short-term respiratory effects among female cleaners with asthma. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Retrieved from http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/oemed-2013-102046.abstract

About the Author

William R. “Bill” Blumenthal is vice-president of the 501c3 nonprofit Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools® (PC4HS) organization. He is a 17-year veteran of the cleaning industry experienced in both internal and contracted operations. Blumenthal is Custodial Supervisor for Douglas County School District in Nevada. bblument1@gmail.com

Published on

By Angel Ford.

I remember high school biology vividly. I remember that it smelled funny and at times I was grossed out by the displays—some in pictures and some in jars. I recall hands-on activities, such as fermenting cabbage to create sauerkraut and then putting it on pizza, and dissecting small animals—thankfully not while eating pizza. I didn’t pursue any area of life science after high school; in fact, I avoided those types of careers because they didn’t fit my personality or interests. However, I did learn a great deal from my lab experiences. Understanding cardiac reports and understanding why certain plants live or die while in my less-than-expert care are just a couple of priceless gems from the biology lab.

Even though there were many benefits in the biology lab, my experiences in the physics lab at that same high school had a significant impact on my future. The physics curriculum seemed beyond challenging, yet the atmosphere, equipment, and experiences piqued my interest. I remember being engaged by my teacher’s excitement and desire for us to learn. The class was furnished with a variety of resources and plenty of room to move around.

I believe the instruction and hands-on experiments in that lab equipped me to become an electro-environmental technician in the Air Force. High school physics helped prepare me to fix billion dollar airplanes with engaging lessons in foundational electrical and mechanical concepts. These same experiences helped me fix my car, other electrical items around my house, and even helped me diagnose a generator in a small village in Mozambique. I’m thankful for the opportunities that I had in science labs because of passionate teachers and the facilities and resources available to enhance their lessons.

Had my experiences in those labs—specifically the physics lab—been different, my life path may have been altered. Had my science classes been held in regular classrooms that restricted those teachers’ methods of instruction, I may not have absorbed as readily, and later been able to apply concepts from physics. I am not an anomaly here. Many people certainly learn more from creating electrical circuits than merely studying schematics and memorizing facts. Many could grasp how to ferment veggies better if they too had the opportunity to taste their own sauerkraut. I’m not against either studying textbooks or memorization; however, I am suggesting that one learns more through hands-on laboratory experiences when these teaching methods are part of the curriculum.

Concerns about students’ achievement of science in our nation are increasing. These anxieties are based on many factors, one of which is the low test scores of students. In 2011, 35 percent of 8th grade students in America tested below the basic level in science (NCES, 2012). In 2010 the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010) emphasized the importance of increasing science performance. This report suggested that this goal could, at least in part, be met by aiding in the formation of strong science identities (how students see themselves in relation to science), and increasing the science motivation and self-efficacy of students.

Interestingly enough studies have demonstrated that the school buildings/classrooms affect teaching and learning (Earthman & Lemasters, 2011). Research also supports the idea that students who engage in active learning, such as hands-on projects and group science projects are prone to score higher on science achievement tests (NCES, 2012), and tend to have an increase in their enjoyment of science (Gilmore, 2013). How many of the students in our nation are in science classrooms that are not optimally constructed for such learning?

Classrooms are not the only factor to consider when looking at increasing science interest, motivation, or achievement. Could it be, however, that by improving the learning environment and providing students and teachers access to appropriately designed and adaptable science labs, that improvements would also occur?

Printable Blog

References

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2011). The influence of school building conditions on students and teachers: A theory-based research program (1993-2011). The ACEF Journal, 1(1), 15-36.

Gilmore, M. (2013). Improvement of STEM education: Experiential learning is the key. Mod. Chem. Appl, 1, e109.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2012). Science 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grade 8. U. S. Department of Education.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). (Executive Summary) REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Retrieved March 19, 2015 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-execsum.pdf

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.