Skip to content

Category: EFC Blogs

Published on

By G. Victor Hellman.

Educators are increasingly aware of the importance of properly designed and maintained facilities for effective learning and instruction. There is much discussion on approaches to learning in the 21st century and what a 21st century school looks like. In addition, there is a growing body of knowledge citing the merits of Community Learning Centers (CLC) or community schools (Malone & Jacobson, 2014). The benefits of Community Learning Centers (CLC) are well known. In an EFC blog post this past September, Malone and Jacobson outlined the advantages of CLCs. Community Learning Centers provide a student with many social supports that they otherwise would not have access to. It is my contention that a community school must include attributes that extend beyond the facility or school walls.

On June 2, 2015, the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) in cooperation with the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) and the Coalition for Community Schools (CCS) sponsored a Community Learning Center study trip to Cincinnati, Ohio. In addition to staff from the three organizations, representatives from organizations such as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), 21st Century School Fund (21CSF), Council of Great City Schools (CGSC), architects and state level facilities directors participated. While in Cincinnati, we had the opportunity to visit three different public school sites: Pleasant Ridge Montessori Community Learning Center, Oyler Community Learning Center, and Roberts Academy Community Learning Center. The testimonials we heard on this study trip validated the merits of what CLCs can offer.

While on our study trip, we examined the factors that influenced the success of the CLCs. We can identify the key steps that Cincinnati took as they implemented their 12-year, $1 billion capital campaign (IEL, 2014). The process involved over one year of public engagement, one year of design, and one and a half to two years of construction for each facility. These steps were repeated for the construction of 34 new buildings and 16 total renovations. The final result was 5,351,668 ft2 of new school facilities designed to meet the individual needs of each community (IEL). This was a mammoth undertaking! The amount of man-hours required for just the public engagement part of the process is beyond comprehension.

What did we observe on this study trip that would provide insight into how to plan, design, and implement community schools successfully? Some of the more relevant components of the process I observed were not academic or per-square-foot cost calculations. What I observed was not designing a perfect floor plan and replicating it across the division. To the contrary, I observed a key individual at the center of the action, spearheading the program—a woman who was a driving force and would not take ‘No’ for an answer or settle for second best. This individual was quietly humble yet had the political capital to muster the appropriate resources and bring them together for the good of students. Yes, the facilities were beautiful and built to facilitate each community school’s individually determined mission; however, in addition to having nice, modern facilities, the three schools on the tour were led by caring, student-centered individuals. Parents were actively involved in the education of their children, and students were having fun and were engaged in the learning process.

The skeptical educator might think all this positive talk is a fantasy, but it is reality in the schools we toured in Cincinnati. It was a reality that begat success not only for the students, but also for the entire neighborhood. I pondered what created this success. How is it that Cincinnati achieved a sense of community across its schools that is rarely seen in other divisions? I asked the champion at the center of the project, “To what do you attribute the success?” Her answer was rather simple, yet it presented the challenge that school administrators across the country face daily: Trust.

During the public engagement planning sessions of the building campaign, Cincinnati community members were asked what was important to them in their neighborhood schools. Initially, many citizens were reluctant to provide input and did not have faith that the process would respond and deliver on their articulated desires. The public engagement process honored the wishes and desires of the constituents and thereby earned their trust. Once citizens realized their input was valued and incorporated into the final product, a sense of ownership was established among all participants. A sense of ownership built upon trust is at the center of a successful community school, or any school for that matter. Whether a division decides to implement the community school model or not, school administrators need to be reminded how important it is to have the trust of the families they serve.

Printable Blog

References

Malone, H. & Jacobson, R. (2014, September 8). Bricks and mortar: community schools as an essential facilities strategy. Retrieved from http://www.efc.gwu.edu//resources/library/bricks-and-mortar-community-schools-as-an-essential-facilities-strategy/

Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL). (Producer). (2014). Community school facilities: authentic engagement, shared space, and neighborhood hubs [Video Webinar]. Retrieved from http://iel.org/communityschools/webinars/archives/2014-09-15/

Victor serves as the Research Project Director for the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC). Dr. Hellman has more than 31 years of work experience in public schools in Virginia. Prior to joining the EFC, Dr. Hellman 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 Linda Lemasters.

In America we have accepted that public education is critical to the very foundation of our country. One of the topics that is not always considered when we discuss public education is equity. Are all schools provided with the same resources, quality of teaching, facilities, and parental support? We sometimes do not speak the obvious, but think about the schools you have visited in urban areas and how they differ from schools in the suburbs. The literature exposes the achievement gap in urban and suburban areas, but what about the funding gap? What differences are related to the funding in urban and rural areas?

Some of the funding differences may be due to the sprawl of the suburban areas, with suburban areas having higher transportation and utility costs. A study in Nova Scotia indicated the difference in the city’s annual costs per household between suburban and urban infrastructure and transportation in Halifax was $1,623 USD (Figure 1). What is most interesting about this visual, however, is the difference spent on schools, libraries, and school bussing. . .three items, which may relate directly or indirectly to the achievement gap. Some urban children have no free or public transportation to school and little or no access to libraries and the services they provide.

The consequences of funding disparities in American schools are sobering. “The funding gap shows that many low-income minority students are subjected to inferior facilities, less adequate teachers, and an incomparable curriculum to their counterparts” (Wright, 2012). Russo (2011) made the point more poignant when he wrote about Illinois schools, “In both 2002 and 2011, the 10 poorest schools on average spent 30 percent of what the 10 richest schools spent on average to educate each student. . .”

Let’s look more closely at the impact of the funding gap on school facilities. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that do not receive adequate funding are putting students at a disadvantage with:

  1. The most inexperienced and lowest paid teachers,
  2. Limited access to up-to-date textbooks,
  3. Limited access to relevant technologies and new computers, (often the older buildings will not accommodate the necessary electrical power for these advances), and
  4. Poorly furnished science labs.

Often the poorer LEAs cannot focus on:

  1. The latest in safety measures,
  2. Cleanliness of hallways, classrooms, and bathrooms,
  3. Graffiti on walls, lockers, desks, and bathrooms, and
  4. Maintenance issues, such as ceiling and wall disrepair, broken lights, leaky roofs, and chipped paint.

The Education Trust calculated the funding gap per student by poverty, minority background, and by state, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education, for the 2003-2004 school year. The numbers are staggering for many states. In the State of Pennsylvania, the gap between revenues per student in the highest- and lowest poverty districts is $1,001 and it is $454 per student in the highest-and lowest-minority districts. (Hobson, pp. 17-18)

Wiener and Pristoop (2006) took the per-student disparity and multiplied it by 25 students per classroom to illustrate how funding gaps can add up, classroom by classroom and school by school. Using this method, the projected funding difference in the State of New York between two elementary schools of 400 students—one from the highest-poverty quartile and one from the lowest-poverty quartile—would translate to $927,600 in favor of the richer district. In a similar way, the funding gap between two high schools of 1500 students in the State of Illinois would translate to a disparity of $2,886,000 in funding in favor of the district with less poverty.

Funding inequalities are present in federal, state, and local governments. Equalizing this funding is not likely to equalize the education all students receive; however, it is the first step to enhancing the education of our urban youth. This brings us full circle to what we discussed in the beginning of this blog: Funding does affect the achievement gap. Hobson stated it very well:

The benefits of equal funding, a prerequisite for improving quality education, outweighs [sic] the costs; this is especially true when the positive externalities of a value-added education are analyzed. Some of these positive externalities are: a diverse and skilled workforce, citizens who have a superior understanding of and participation in the democratic process, the loss of incentive to commit crimes as more education translates into a higher income capacity and greater conformity to a set of society values.

It seems only fitting that all students attend school in clean, healthy, safe environments; that they have quality teachers; that we rid our American public education system of the plague of disparities in educational quality and financing.

suburbansprawl

Figure 1: The Real Costs of Suburban Sprawl

Printable Blog

References and resources:

Carrasco, A. (2015, March 9). The Real Costs of Suburban Sprawl in One Infographic. Downloaded on May 25, 2015: http://curbed.com/archives/2015/03/09/suburban-vs-urban-infrastructure-costs.php

Hobson, I. The Public Education Funding Dilemma. Downloaded on June 8, 2015: https://www.neumann.edu/academics/divisions/business/journal/Review2013/Hobson.pdf

Russo, A. (2011, November 8). Whatever Happened to School Funding Gaps? This Week in Education. Downloaded on June 6, 2015: http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2011/11/the-much-ignored-school-funding-gap.html#.VXWh4mRViko

Wiener, R., & Pristoop. E. (2006). How states shortchange the districts that need the most help. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Wright, W. (2013). Proceedings of The National Conference on Undergraduate Research, 2012: The Disparities between Urban and Suburban American Education Systems: A Comparative Analysis Using Social Closure Theory. Ogden, Utah: Weber State University.

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 teaches graduate level coursework, advises students, and directs student research. 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 T. R. Dunlap.

Over the last decade STEM has been the topic of much discussion in education circles. STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education promotes pertinent, science-related courses of study in the educational experience of students. In an increasingly globalized and competitive market, it is widely recognized that the need for STEM skills is rapidly increasing. While STEM sectors are in high demand, it seems there are simply not enough proficient participants in these fields. The U.S. Department of Education reports that only 16 percent of American high schools seniors are prepared for and interested in a STEM career (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). With statistics like this, there is a gathering storm in the American workforce.

In American education there has been a tremendous redirection of attention to emphasize STEM courses. Consequently, governmental and philanthropic investments have been made to make STEM classes central in our education system. It follows that facility administrators and planners have sought funds to develop and bolster STEM programs at many private and public schools, and universities have invested millions of dollars in STEM-related facilities. There are some important considerations to keep in mind as educational institutions seek to expand services into the STEM markets with state-of-the-art facilities. Here are just three:

#1 – EVALUATE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE STEM INVESTMENT

STEM courses are important! Nobody is arguing against that fact. It stands to reason that educational institutions should invest in facilities that meet the demands of a global market. However, every facility may not be equipped for the most advanced STEM classroom features, and fiscal constraints will be a factor. There is great financial cost involved in designing, building or retrofitting facilities for STEM education. Biology and chemistry labs, science observation rooms, technology centers, etc., are all important and necessary.

As your institution plans to invest in STEM programs, consider the cost/benefit ratio for your particular setting. Some schools have had to navigate these waters only to find costs were greater than expected (Catalanello, Solochek, & Ackerman, 2012). Seek counsel from those organizations that have gone through this process before and develop a clear plan to identify the goals of this investment. Determine the level of financial investment that is appropriate to the goals of the institution. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.

#2 – REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF A BALANCED CURRICULUM

STEM education isn’t the only game in town. Recently, in his Washington Post column, Fareed Zakaria even called current trends to emphasize STEM courses “dangerous” (Zakaria, 2015). Zakaria’s central point was that the elevation of STEM subjects over and against other disciplines leads to shortsightedness among students, if not their disenfranchisement for having other interests. An integrated approach to STEM education has been called for in order to develop a multidisciplinary approach to learning (Johnson, 2013). Educational planners must take care to avoid the over direction of resources to select fields of study.

#3 – STEM EDUCATION IS AN EVER-EVOLVING TREND

While STEM fields are viewed as the principle sectors for job growth and international economic advantage, there is not a clear consensus on what methods, subjects, and criteria comprise STEM education (Brown, 2012). Courses in biology, chemistry, and physics will find a comfortable home within the STEM education classification; however, the evolution of technology and changes in the types of jobs in demand demonstrate that STEM is evolving and there is yet to be a comprehensive definition.

We must remember that STEM education is a trend, and, like all trends, it undergoes critique, evolution, and reinterpretation. Currently, there are several other STEM derivatives. STEAM education is a newer framework for teaching (Yakman, 2012). The ‘A’ in STEAM refers to ‘the arts’, as this approach integrates the arts—visual art, performance, music, etc.—within the STEM paradigm. Other spinoffs have sought to highlight ‘reading’ (R) to create STREAM education (Furman, 2014). Innovation and global competitiveness are not only driven by technology and engineering, but also by creativity, storytelling, design, and other skills. Perhaps if districts would wish to be on board with the most current trend in education, a facility investment should include appropriations for art and reading spaces.

These are just three things to think about when preparing to develop STEM programs and planning for the resultant facility adaptations that might be required. Keep in mind that a STEM investment must be thoughtful and goal-oriented; STEM courses are only one facet of education; and, the STEM trend today may not govern the education agenda of tomorrow.

Printable Blog

References

Brown, J. (2012). The Current Status of STEM Education Research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7–11.

Catalanello, R., Solochek, J. S., Ackerman, S. (2012). Bulking up STEM comes with a price tag, educators say. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/bulking-up-stem-comes-with-a-price-tag-educators-say/1210889

Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing Integrated STEM Education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368. http://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12043

Furman, R. (2014). STEM Needs to Be Updated to STREAM. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-furman/stem-needs-updated-to-str_b_5461814.html

Yakman, G. (2012). Recognizing the A in STEM Education. Middle Ground, 16(1), 15–16.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem

Zakaria, F. (2015). Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html

T. R. Dunlap is a research assistant at 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.

Published on

By E. M. Wallace, MPH, May 14, 2015.

I have lived in the world of acronyms most of my adult life. I added ‘IAQ’—short for ‘Indoor Air Quality’—to my vocabulary this past year. Good indoor air quality (IAQ) is considered an important component of safe, healthy, and productive school environments (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). In our work at the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC), we collect and disseminate resources on safe and healthy education facilities, and I have been eager to learn more about IAQ in relation to school environmental health.

What is the significance of IAQ? ‘A’ is for air. People breathe air—regularly! That alone makes IAQ a pretty important topic. Most adults probably have a basic awareness that inhaling mold, mildew, asbestos, harsh chemicals, and other pollutants can have adverse health effects, especially for one’s respiratory system (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Growing children with developing lungs are especially sensitive to toxic environmental pollutants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 2014). School-based exposure to poor IAQ can interfere with a student’s ability to be present, ready, and able to learn (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Asthma, headaches, lethargy, nausea, drowsiness, and dizziness can be distracting. Beyond producing acute symptoms and irritations, certain hazardous pollutants—referred to as ‘air toxics’—are known or suspected to cause cancer over time (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).

What can be done at schools to protect air quality? Many factors influence IAQ; let me draw attention to one in this blog. I was surprised to come across a study that referenced idling vehicles when searching for model practices for IAQ at schools. “What do vehicles have to do with indoor air quality?” I thought. “Vehicle emissions are linked to outdoor air pollution, aren’t they?” As I delved further into the topic, I learned that outdoor pollutants creep indoors via air flow through open doors, windows, air intake mechanisms, and ‘leaky’ building envelopes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). It became apparent to me how the transportation dynamics surrounding the daily ritual of school dismissal set the stage for reduced outdoor and indoor air quality.

Young schoolchildren can’t legally drive (thankfully). Therefore, transporting children to school on school buses is a major logistical operation for many school districts. You’ve seen it: buses in queue, waiting for the final bell to ring and students to spill out of buildings and climb aboard. If engines are running, fuel is burned and diesel exhaust is emitted—whether the bus is moving or not. Idling buses produce concentrated levels of unhealthy exhaust, including pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde (American Lung Association, Colorado, n.d.; Environmental Law Institute, 2013)

Buses aren’t the only vehicles idling at schools, however. Measurements at schools have shown spikes in concentrations of air toxics during the afternoon timeframe when parents come to pick up their children (Denver Department of Environmental Health, 2012; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 2014). Consider this claim: “Idling a vehicle for one minute produces more carbon monoxide than three packs of smoked cigarettes” (Denver Department of Environmental Health, 2012). This comparison provides some startling perspective when you imagine a tightly packed line of idling vehicles outside of a school building with engines running for 10, 20, or even 30 minutes.

Vehicle idling is largely unnecessary and is a behavior that can be modified with a combination of raising awareness, policy change, messaging, and enforcement (Denver Department of Environmental Health, 2012). The Environmental Law Institute tracks state laws and regulations on key school environmental health issues; more than 30 states are listed as having some form of state policy on vehicle idling at schools (Environmental Law Institute, n.d.).

Voluntary anti-idling (or reduced-idling) campaigns have been implemented with the goal to limit student exposure to toxic vehicle exhaust by lessening the frequency and duration of idling behavior (Denver Department of Environmental Health, 2012). Here are a few resources to explore for further information:

  • The Clean Air at Schools: Engines Off! (CASEO) program is an example of a collaborative anti-idling program that utilizes a social marketing approach (Denver Department of Environmental Health, 2012).
  • AirwatchNW offers a toolkit of downloadable and customizable resources for implementing idling reduction activities at schools (AirwatchNW, n.d.).
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website makes available a number of excellent resources related to anti-idling programs and related school bus diesel programs, emissions reductions, and clean fuels (www.epa.gov).

Raise your IAQ IQ and take action to address vehicle idling and other threats to air quality at schools!

Printable Blog

References

AirwatchNW. (n.d.). Anti-Idling Programs. Retrieved from http://www.airwatchnw.org/anti-idling-programs/

American Lung Association, Colorado. (n.d.) Clean Air at Schools: Engines Off! Retrieved from http://www.lung.org/associations/states/colorado/clean-air/Engines-off.html

Denver Department of Environmental Health. (2012). Clean Air at Schools: Engines Off, Model Practice. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org/topics/modelpractices/displaymp.cfm?id=440

Environmental Law Institute. (n.d.). Topics in School Environmental Health. Retrieved from http://www.eli.org/buildings/topics-school-environmental-health

Environmental Law Institute. (2013). Vehicle Idling at Schools: Overview of State Laws. Retrieved from http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/idling_draft_final_draft.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Action Kit. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/actionkit.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). About Air Toxics. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/oar/toxicair/newtoxics.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. (2014). Idle Free Schools Toolkit. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/region8/idle-free-schools

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 Rex Morrison, Founder, 501c3, Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools®

Health care is often associated with high cost, but preventive health care often costs less and pays more in better health and other benefits. According to the U.S. Surgeon General’s office: “Prevention policies and programs often are cost-effective, reduce health care costs, and improve productivity.” [1]

Cleaning—the removal of unwanted matter, including dirt, dust, microbes, excess moisture and other contaminants that can affect health and the learning environment—is a form of preventive medicine. Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools®, a 501c3 not-for-profit program rooted in this premise, is established in nearly 400 schools nationwide, demonstrating effectiveness and affordability.

Through a process of standardization, repeatable process, and simplified training, the program saved one large western school district approximately $800,000 in the first year of deployment [2]. This was accomplished while enhancing cleaning and health-related impacts. A typical savings for smaller districts using the Process Cleaning® method might be in the six figures, while incorporating healthier practices including:

  • Simplified, ergonomic methods and tools
  • Daily cleaning of classroom desk tops and “touch points” for reduction of fomites (e.g. cleanable surfaces that may be contaminated with and transmit pathogens)
  • AC- and battery-powered, micro-filtered, backpack vacuums for mobility, speed, access, and dust retention
  • Restroom cleaning using spray-and-vac technology for more rapid and complete soil, viral, and bacterial removal versus older spray-and-wipe or mop-and-bucket methods

The Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools® program is developed in two stages:

  1. A two-day assessment

An initial onsite, two-day assessment provides the school district with a basic implementation outline based on cleanable square feet, building layout, special needs, current staff and desired reductions. Net savings—subtracting total program implementation investment and costs for district-wide deployment including labor, supply and equipment needs—are determined by this initial assessment and are provided in writing and on Excel spreadsheets.

  1. A two-week implementation

PC4HS uses well-defined management principles and practices including task specialization, standardization, time and motion benchmarks, training, and work loading to help ensure results within budget. Color-coded service maps are created for both daily and deep cleaning, and service assessment logs are used for tracking and documentation purposes.

Cleaning, Health and Learning

A 2008 report from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), reviewed the scientific literature “to advise school officials and other interested parties about the relationship between cleaning, indoor environmental quality and health.” [3] MDH’s summary reported:

  • Effective routine and periodic deep cleaning reduced indoor levels of dust, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and microbes 29% to 84%.
  • Proper cleaning of floors and common above-floor surfaces lowered classroom dust 21-42%.
  • Frequent desktop cleaning was linked to less sinus congestion and fewer allergies.

MDH correlated better cleaning with enhanced learning, performance, and attendance. It cited related studies showing possible office-task performance gains of two to eight percent from better cleaning.

A 1993 Virginia Tech study evaluated the relationship between building condition (including cleaning) and student achievement and behavior, finding that "student achievement was found to be higher in those buildings with higher quality ratings" and that better test scores were associated with better-looking school buildings, including cosmetic and cleaning-related aspects. [4]

Conclusion

A health-centric, affordable, proven system of cleaning and operations is not only cost-effective, but a “clean for health” program is preventive medicine that pays by making schools healthier and safer for students and staff and contributes to increased attendance, learning, and cost savings. Visit www.pc4hf.org for more information.

Printable Blog

References

  1. Economic Benefits of Preventing Disease
    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/prevention/strategy/appendix1.pdf
  1. NPR – Revolution in Cleaning
    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=3625646&m=3625647
  1. Minnesota Department of Health. (2008, Aug). Cleaning, Indoor Quality and Health. A Review of Scientific Literature.
    http://www.buildingwellness.com/assets/documents/Indoor
    _Environment_Characterization_Of_A_Non_Problem_Building.pdf
  1. Cash, C. S. (1993).  Building condition and student achievement and behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10052007-143026/unrestricted/LD5655.V856_1993.C379.pdf

Rex Morrison

Rex Morrison is president of Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools® (PC4HS), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization with a mission of “schools helping schools.” The process optimizes efficiency, cleanliness, ease of deployment, and health factors through a carefully designed and documented system tailored for K-12 school districts and higher education.

Published on

By T. R. Dunlap, April 17, 2015.

One very important feature of the EFC’s upcoming webinar, Designing Safe Schools, is the identification of low-cost and effective strategies to make schools safer. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), once called ‘defensible spaces’ (Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1966), describes ways in which the design and modifications of facilities can help thwart criminal activity and deter violence. CPTED strategies derive from the best practices of architects, security consultants, law enforcement, city planners and management, educators and facility administrators (Angel, 1968; Atlas, 2008; Jeffery, 1989; University & NCPI, 2000), and many of these principles are easy to identify and cost very little (or nothing!) to implement. CPTED involves three principle components to manage exposure to crime and harm: natural surveillance, access control and territoriality. Let’s look at how we can make some small changes within each component to achieve greater levels of safety.

Natural surveillance is crucial to the security of a facility. Criminal activity thrives when there is a low expectation of getting caught. The best way to address this issue is to create a space in which there is no place to hide. Many new constructions have an open concept floor plan to better ensure natural surveillance; however, steps can be taken in older spaces to create better sightlines for supervision. Just look for some simple fixes. For example, make sure that landscapes do not obstruct natural surveillance; if so, you may need to cut back branches or relocate shrubs. Designate visitor parking and bike racks within the natural surveillance and make sure places where visitors enter are easily monitored. Keep hallways clear of obstructions and determine if classrooms and staircases can be used as hiding places—you’ll want to give extra attention to these spaces. Make sure supervisors are on the scene when utilizing common spaces like atriums, gymnasiums, cafeterias and auditoriums where natural surveillance is optimal. When we are careful to use natural surveillance, intruders and threats can be more quickly identified and addressed.

Think about the security of your facility’s entrances (Spicer, n.d.). Regulations and limitations imposed on entrances reduce the number of opportunities for intruders to enter the facility. Consider the inclusion of perimeter fencing to deter trespassers and limit the number of points of entry. Make sure to secure all unnecessary entrances so that intruders cannot just walk into the facility without being noticed. Install security window film to reinforce glass on main entrances. Some violent attackers have entered school building through unsecured windows. Also, locate dumpsters and other objects that could be used to climb onto or into the building at sufficient distance from the facility. Your school should also incorporate procedural directives to secure entrances. For example, have staff members conduct ID checks for all visitors. These are some simple ways to make sure that facility entrances pose as little risk as possible to your students and staff.

Finally, think about the territoriality of your space. Territoriality is the delineation of spaces that creates an environment where intruders are more likely to standout. Consider using generic, clear and concise signage at all hallway entrances, and use directional signage to gyms, cafeterias, library and other parts of the facility. The designated use of space creates a sense of ownership among staff and students. When all occupants have a clear idea of the space’s utility and function, they are more likely to recognize when a person does not belong or when something is amiss. The identification of spaces is a CPTED principle that is inexpensive and easy to employ.

The implementation of CPTED strategies is highly important in a safety-centered education facility, and all stakeholders should be made aware of these and other simple steps to develop a safe learning environment.

You can learn more about CPTED and other ways to secure education facilities in our Designing Safe Schools webinar April 30, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), with its Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC) and Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) Technical Assistance (TA) Center, will celebrate National PrepareAthon! Day by hosting a webinar that provides insight on safety and security design and cost-effective features to consider for new construction of or retrofitting existing school buildings and grounds.

Printable Blog

Bibliography

Spicer, B. (n.d.). “11 Components of a Secure School Front Entrance." Retrieved March 24, 2015, from http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/11-components-of-a-secure-school-front-entrance/

Angel, S. (1968). Discouraging crime through city planning. Berkeley: Institute of Urban & Regional Development.

Atlas, R. (2008). 21st Century Security and CPTED: Designing for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Crime Prevention. Auerbach Publications. Retrieved from http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/book/10.1201/9781420068085

Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Sage Publications.

Jeffery, C. R. (1989). Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Facsimile edition). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Newman, O. (1966). Creating Defensible Space. DIANE Publishing.

University, T. C. M. S. C.-F. S., & NCPI. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Second Edition (2 edition). Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann.

T. R. Dunlap is a research assistant at 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.

Published on

By Lauren Jesmer, Healthy Schools Network, Inc.

School buildings are not usually the first place people think about when discussing concern for the environment, but perhaps they should. Why? Over 55 million children and seven million adults—20% of the U.S. population—are in schools every day.[1] Children and women of childbearing age are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of environmental contaminants. Nine of ten school occupants nationwide are women and children. Therefore, healthy indoor school environments are of particular importance.

Children need clean air outdoors, and they also need clean air indoors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that half of all schools have indoor pollution problems that are largely avoidable. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that polluted indoor environments are already damaging the nation’s health and learning, and it has recommended taking action to prevent exposures to indoor contaminants.[2]

Schools simply have not been designed, built and operated to be environmentally responsible for those occupants most vulnerable to toxic hazards. Even new ‘green’ building standards too often miss the mark when it comes to indoor environmental health. But, fortunately, times are changing. For good reasons, both the EPA and the U.S. Department of Education are encouraging state agencies and local schools to take action to improve indoor air quality. It just makes sense: our children need healthy environments, it saves money to prevent pollution instead of remediating the consequences later at enormous costs, and improved indoor air quality is good for education. Healthy indoor environments have been shown to boost attendance and achievement and help with teacher recruitment, retention and productivity.[3]

Some schools have taken steps to improve the quality of their indoor environment by seeking out and buying less-hazardous products to use indoors; removing water-damaged carpets; installing hard surface flooring that is easier to clean; phasing in third-party certified green cleaning products to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals; eliminating air fresheners and room deodorizers; disposing of old, outdated and hazardous chemicals to reduce the risks of spills and injuries; keeping food and pets out of classrooms to reduce pest infestations; and decluttering classrooms to make them easier to clean at the end of the day. Energy efficient lighting and ventilation systems are additional cost-effective strategies to improve indoor school environments.

On the thirteenth anniversary of National Healthy Schools Day, take the opportunity to think about your school. What steps are being taken to protect the health and wellbeing of the individuals and children who, during the school year, may spend eight or more hours there every day? What steps can you take to help? For more help, visit http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/index.html or www.healthyschools.org.

Printable Blog

Lauren Jesmer is the Program Manager at the Healthy Schools Network where she coordinates and manages National Healthy Schools Day and other programs for the organization. Healthy Schools Network advocates for environmental health in schools across the country, with focuses on green cleaning, healthy products, indoor air quality, and more. HealthySchools.org, NationalHealthySchoolsDay.org, CleaningforHealthySchools.org.

 

[1] Healthy Schools Network, Inc. (2013). Towards Healthy Schools 2015. Albany, NY.

[2] IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2011). Climate Change, the Indoor Environment, and Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

[3] "About the Guidelines." EPA. http://www.epa.gov/schools/guidelinestools/ehguide/read/about.html#importance.

Published on

By G. Victor Hellman, Jr., Ed.D., March 19, 2015.

Previous editions of Bricks and Mortar have focused on school facility topics such as the important role facilities play in education, the need for maintenance, how schools are integral parts of the community, how students’ perceptions of safety impact achievement, ways to retrofit older facilities to make them safer and how changing pedagogies impact facilities for the 21st century. This edition will continue to address the importance of school facilities; however, it will do so from a slightly different vantage point. I will examine three recent articles in which school facilities made headlines.

“Schools on military bases struggle with maintenance” read a recent headline in the Los Angeles Times. At the crux of the issue is an elementary school located on Edwards Air Force Base. The school ranks eighth out of 160 schools on the Pentagon’s priority list for improvements. Needs include a roof replacement, an upgrade to playground equipment, new doors for classes and offices, electrical upgrades, lighting upgrades, and new HVAC equipment.

All told, the price tag for these maintenance and construction projects is approximately $27.8 million, of which the locality must allocate $5.5 million. Unfortunately, the California Department of Finance denied the funding request by the California Department of Education for this and similar projects. While the federal government has agreed to provide 80% of the necessary funds, the state has declined to meet its required 20% match.

Really? What kind of message does that send to the children and parents of the elementary school and other schools in similar situations?   As citizens, parents, and taxpayers, why don’t we require the same level of maintenance for the places our children learn as we provide for our own homes? Few of us would allow a leaky roof to persist or not replace an air conditioner when it is not operational. How can we allow a school with a 60% military population to have anything less? Not funding the State’s share of required repairs is paramount to a slap in the face of the federal government and all of our military families.

“Big roaches and moldy juice? Students put Sunset High cleanliness in spotlight” is a headline right out of the Miami Times. Students complained but no one responded to their allegations. After a student’s post of pictures went viral—purportedly showing moldy juice, a fat cockroach, and yellow and cloudy water from a water fountain--action was taken. The school was scrubbed clean; however, the situation sparked a petition calling for the principal’s resignation. The school also failed a facilities inspection conducted by the Florida Department of Health. The failure was a result of mold found in a storage room and in ceiling tiles.

Really? How can school administrators allow a facility to become so unkempt? How can parents that enter the facility turn a blind eye on such horrid conditions? Did faculty complaints fall upon deaf ears? Did the faculty complain or was it complacent with the filthy conditions? Why does it take a web post to go viral before anyone acknowledges the problems? These are rhetorical questions, but the facts remain, schools must be clean and sanitary.

In many situations, a school lunch is the only hot meal a student gets. It must be prepared under sanitary conditions. If a restaurant consistently failed health inspections, it would not stay in business. Likewise, a hotel with a roach or rodent problem is destined to have a very high vacancy rate. At what level of cleanliness should we maintain our schools? I would suggest that a school be as clean as a hospital. As parents and citizens, why would we want to expose our children to anything less than hospital clean? That is my recommended benchmark for a clean school building. And please do not confuse the age of a facility as a proxy for how clean it can be. Visit any federal building in our nation’s capital and you will understand my point.

Recently in Education News it was reported, “From Spending to Governance, Buffalo Facing School Turmoil.” This article discussed how $41 million was missing from a $175 million building fund to renovate deteriorating school buildings.   This was discovered in the final phase of a ten-year, $1.4 billion capital restoration project. The article illustrates that school construction and renovation is big business with billions of dollars at stake. There must be adequate systems in place for oversight of public funds and accountability of those whom we entrust these funds with. This will be the topic of further posts.

I know some of you are thinking that these cases are extreme and that conditions like those mentioned do not exist in your locality. I would submit that if these conditions do not exist in your locality, you know someone who lives in a community where they do. Together, we can all help improve the places where students learn.

Printable Version

References:

Mejia, B., (2015). Schools on military bases struggle with maintenance. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-military-base-schools-20150116-story.html.

Smith, G., (2015). From spending to governance, Buffalo facing school turmoil. Education News, Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/from-spending-to-governance-buffalo-facing-school-turmoil/.

Veiga, C., (2015). Big roaches and moldy juice? Students put Sunset High cleanliness in spotlight. Miami Herald, Retrieved March 12, 2015 from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article7825257.html.

Victor serves as the Research Project Director for the Education Facilities Clearinghouse (EFC). Dr. Hellman has more than 31 years of work experience in public schools in Virginia. Prior to joining the EFC, Dr. Hellman 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 Dr. Linda Lemasters, March 5, 2015.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about old cars or new cars and new school versus old schools.  Which were the safest?  The consensus of the discussion was new tended to be safer.  That being said, not all children can attend new schools or even schools, which have been remodeled or retrofitted.  We went on to discuss very low- or no-cost activities, plans, and processes that can make older schools safer.  (Please refer to the Blog of January 23, 2015.)

Let’s take this a step further and look at some low-cost retrofits, remodeling, and/or equipment changes that can provide greater safety.  It is difficult to have this discussion without including some safety and security procedures as well.

  • Provide training for your local fire, police, and emergency responders. They should understand the layout of your school facility, where the phones are located, where master controls are located, and how to operate the intercom and or bell system.
  • Design the outside school property with appropriate signage, vegetation, fencing, and clearly defined boundaries.
  • Assure there are no obstacles or landscaping obscuring the view of the entrances and exits; have periodical checks to ensure these areas have clear views.
  • Keep the outdoor lighting well maintained.
  • Place cameras in niches and blind spots around the school building indoors and outdoors.
  • Install faceplates on the exterior doors to prevent jimmying of locks.
  • Renumber all interior doors and floors of multilevel buildings so that the numbering makes sense and is sequential.
  • Develop two-way communication systems between all classrooms or rooms in which children may be served.
  • Work with the phone company for an easy-to-use caller ID system, which also enables call tracing.
  • Keep unoccupied spaces locked when not in use.
  • Ensure that unauthorized users cannot control restroom lighting.
  • Install automatic battery and/or portable generators to maintain emergency and communication equipment when there is no electricity. Make sure these batteries or generators are well maintained.
  • Install a panic button or alarm easily accessed by the front desk of the school. This alarm needs to be connected directly to the fire and police departments, on-site school security, as well as emergency services.
  • Hire a safety and security employee to maintain and provide professional development on security and safety plans and to keep them current. This person should have a calendar with periodic assessments of security systems, playgrounds, athletic facilities, portable classrooms, and any other area that needs continual maintenance and attention to mitigate school hazards and safety issues.
  • Install window safety film, if plexiglass windows are too expensive.
  • Know the natural disasters that are more likely to occur in your geographic area; have disaster and sheltering plans on the ready at all times.
  • Retrofit and remodel entryways to provide vestibules, along with revised floor plans that have school offices in the front of each building. This should be accompanied with visitor and parent sign-in practices.

While many of our current schools have not been designed with safety and security measure in mind, with thought, professional development, and relatively small financial investments, older schools can be made safe.   Be assured, we here at the EFC realize that the list we have shared in this blog is only the very tip of the iceberg.  For more information, please go to our website (efc-staging.edstudies.net) and read the many trusted and tried procedures used to make the older school more safe.

Back to the new car, old car . . . Do we buy a new Camaro, or retrofit and remodel the antique Mustang to improve its safety?  We can do a lot to make that old Mustang safer!! Watch the blog site in a few weeks:  the topic will be Safety by Design:  New Construction.

Printable Blog Post

References and resources:

efc-staging.edstudies.net
http://rems.ed.gov/

 

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 teaches graduate level coursework, advises students, and directs student research.  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 T.R. Dunlap, February 20, 2015.

As we prepare for the EFC’s upcoming webinar entitled ‘Safe Schools by Design’, we hope to convey the importance of students’ perceptions of safety in the design and improvements of school buildings. Perceptions wield great power over the values and behaviors of individuals and communities, and these modes of thinking affect social processes like education. Fundamentally, perceptions, internalized and expressed, produce social norms and guide behavior.

For our purposes, let’s consider the effects of students’ perception of safety in the process of education and in the context of the education facility. There are a number of articles exploring correlations between students’ perceptions of personal safety and academic achievement (Burdick-Will, 2013), behavior (Watt, 1998), and mental health (Nijs et al., 2014). In short, researchers submit that students’ perceptions of jeopardized safety negatively affect academic progress, increase maladaptive and deviant behavior, and increase types and frequency of mental illnesses. In light of these findings, those concerned with education policy, or any stakeholder for that matter, should consider the importance of providing safe spaces for teaching and learning.

It is theorized that perceptions of the immediate physical environment lend themselves to signaling effects that foster social norms and behavior (Keuschnigg & Wolbring, 2015). Furthermore, the often-cited ‘broken window’ theory holds that the appearance of social disorder creates cultural acceptance and expectation of disorder (Kelling & Wilson, 2012). The implications of ‘broken windows’—a metaphor for any environmental attribute that indicates social dysfunction—are demonstrated in the attitudes and behaviors of participants in relation to the physical environment. For example, if a neighborhood has trash all over the sidewalks, it is more probable that participants in this physical environment will add to the trash, believing that littering is a ‘normal’ behavior in this context. Another example: Perhaps a person believes there is greater risk of violence in another part of town; this person is more likely to act cautiously or even aggressively in that particular physical environment. The attributes of an environment are assessed by the human mind to infer (or even invent) information about the social considerations pertaining to the physical context.

We must be concerned with the signaling effect of the education facility’s physical environment. Inadequately designed and improperly maintained education facilities do no favors in fostering positive social norms and elevating students’ motivation to behave well and succeed. Consider beginning with basic questions: Are rooms dimly lit? Is mold or water damage visible? How can we improve the perceptions of the learning environment? As we prepare for the upcoming training on school safety, we are driven by a desire to convey the importance of altering perceptions, upholding positive social norms, and ensuring students that their facilities are safe and secure places to learn.

References

Burdick-Will, J. (2013). School Violent Crime and Academic Achievement in Chicago. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 343–361.

Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (2012). Broken Windows. Atlantic, 310(4).

Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2015). Disorder, social capital, and norm violation: Three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality & Society, 27(1), 96–126.

Nijs, M., Bun, C., Tempelaar, W., Wit, N., Burger, H., Plevier, C., & Boks, M. (2014). Perceived School Safety is Strongly Associated with Adolescent Mental Health Problems. Community Mental Health Journal, 50(2), 127–134.

Watt, D. R. (1998). I’m in charge here: Exposure to community violence, perceptions of control, and academic and aggressive outcome in inner-city youth. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=pqRLAQAAIAAJ

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. 

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.