Skip to content

Category: EFC Publications

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. 

Published on

By Angel Ford, February 6, 2015.

Citizens that care about students might come to a consensus that safe and healthy school buildings are an important consideration of education.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, safety is “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss,” and healthy is “good for and conducive to health” (Merriam-Webster).

When including safety and health into an effective definition of school design, it would mean to plan and make decisions about school facilities (both in new construction and existing buildings) to ensure students, teachers, staff, and visitors will be safe from hurt, injury, or loss and will be in an environment that is good for their health.

We wouldn’t knowingly send children into structurally unsafe buildings with crumbling roofs or walls that are falling down; however, some conditions that affect health and safety are less obvious such as poor indoor air quality and/or mold, toxic building materials from years ago or in some instances inadequate climate control

Some schools have elements that are in need of repair and some even have elements that are beyond repair.  This should not be the case.  We need to do better for our students. Parents should be confident that the buildings where their children learn are designed or redesigned in line with best practices for safety and health.

Outside of the initial concerns for safety and health is the idea that these poor conditions can affect student motivation and thus student achievement.

Maslow’s theory of motivation shows it is important to ensure that people are in environments that meet basic human needs, with the physiological (health) needs and the need for safety being foundational (Maslow, 1943).

Meeting these basic needs does not guarantee that students will be motivated to learn; however, any area where educators can remove known obstacles the path to learning is more likely.  When basic needs are not met, “The urge to write poetry… the interest in American history… become of secondary importance.” (Maslow, 1943, p. 3).

If the basic needs of students are not being met, then time and energy must be used tending to those needs before time and energy can be spent on academics.  If students are too cold or too hot, they may not be able to focus (Earthman, 2004; Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2007 ).  If the classroom is not well lighted, is overcrowded or unsafe in anyway, the focus of the students may not be on the lessons (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2007).   If a building even feels unsafe to the students because of broken fixtures, graffiti, etc., the students may be unable to concentrate on the academic goals in front of them.

Looking at the importance of school environments through the lens of Maslow’s theory of motivation, there may be some evidence that without meeting basic needs it could be difficult for students to make an effort to concentrate their attention on developing academic patterns and digesting the academic materials they are being presented.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

maslow

Schools in poor conditions have the potential to affect student achievement through changing students’ moment to moment motivation.  Students shouldn’t be in survival mode.  If they are, we cannot expect them to thrive.

Keeping the work of Maslow in mind, designing and maintaining schools for safety and health must be high priorities.  These are the most basic needs of our students and crucial to their learning environment.

Keep following The Educational Facilities Clearinghouse (efc-staging.edstudies.net) as we expand our information on Safety by Design for schools.  The motivation and academic achievement of students depend on having physical environments conducive to learning.

Printable Blog Post

References

Earthman, G. I.  (2004).  Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD:  American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Uline, C. & Tschannen-Moran, M.  (2007). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement.   Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55-73.

http://www.researchhistory.org/2012/06/16/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/

 

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

Published on

By Linda Lemasters, January 23, 2015

New car, old car?  An antique Mustang or a brand new Camaro?  Which is the safest?  My husband and I had a ’67 Mustang; it was a great little car.  Most of us would admit, however, that the new Camaro—with the latest in airbags, backup cameras, anti-lock brakes and stabilization, blind spot alerts, and many more bells and whistles—is the safest.  The same can be said of new school buildings.  Newer schools are perceived to be the safest.  Nearly all newer schools have systems that assist in controlling access to the building and grounds during school hours, have the most up-to-date camera systems to monitor inside and out of the facility, have the latest HVAC systems that control indoor air quality, have no contaminants in the building materials, have the latest in fire and smoke safety, have the latest in technology for alert systems, are totally handicap accessible, and have “Columbine” locks that permit teachers to secure their rooms from inside the classroom. We could go on and on.

The most disheartening in all of this:  all of our children cannot go to school in new buildings.  Not all can go to schools that have been remodeled or retrofitted.  What can be done to make your older school safe with little or no expense?  Please note, this list is not all inclusive, but all schools can have:

  • Involvement of everyone in the safety planning processes: school board, employees, students, parents, media, service groups and community organizations, law enforcement, and business leaders
  • Disaster, lock-down, and evacuation plans—and practice them
  • Signage that is easily seen and understood
  • A school safety advisory group
  • Safety workshops that are a part of professional development activities
  • Conflict resolution procedure and mediation plans
  • A school beautification plan and other activities that build a sense of pride
  • All exterior doors locked and someone greeting at the main entrance with a sign-in/sign-out procedure and I.D. badges
  • A parent visitation pick-up procedure to include early dismissals
  • A way to notify parents of student absences
  • De-cluttered classrooms and hallways
  • Risk management and safety assessments that are conducted regularly
  • A system, working with law enforcement, to fingerprint all young children
  • Provisions to work with local media to share safety information and to provide correct and helpful information during crisis
  • Access to free safety, health, and disaster information on the state and federal websites
  • A systemic, mandatory, district-wide incident reporting system

As you read, you most likely are thinking of a half-dozen more ideas, which I have not listed.  The idea is, however, a school or a local school agency (LEA) does not need to use the excuse of “no money” to make the places where our children learn more safe.  In addition, schools with adequate funding need to make sure they pay attention to some of these suggestions.  School disasters, safety problems, unhealthy schools are not simply relegated to poorer LEAs.

In summary, schools become safer when we “think safety” all of the time and not get upset when we have to get a badge in the school office to visit our child’s classroom or when we are asked to park in a particular area to provide safe ingress and egress of the school site.  School safety is not just the job of the administration and teachers; it is the community’s job.  There are many things we all can do that cost little or nothing to make the places where children learn safe.

Watch the blog site in a few weeks. The topic will be safety by design: new construction, retrofits, and remodeling.   Remember the first part of our blog—new car, old car?  Do we buy a new Camaro, or retrofit and remodel the antique Mustang to improve its safety?

View Printable PDF

References and resources:

http://rems.ed.gov/

http://www.dhs.gov/school-safety

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/designing-safe-facilities

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/safe-learning-environments

http://www.efc.gwu.edu//

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/school.htm

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/index.aspx

http://www.ncpc.org/cms-upload/ncpc/File/BSSToolkit_Complete.pdf

http://www.pta.org/safetytoolkit

http://www.schoolsafety.us/

http://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/build-safe-environment/

http://www.wikihow.com/Provide-a-Safe-Environment-at-Preschool

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.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 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 Angel Ford, November 24, 2014.

Educators are increasingly encouraged to use effective pedagogies for millennials.  This is not a bad thing in and of itself; however, many of the techniques are difficult at best in traditional classrooms with rows of desks and little space to move around.  If teachers are being asked to change the way they teach, it is imperative that the physical environment is adapted to empower them to use to do so effectively.

Teachers should not be expected to perform 21st century pedagogy in 20th century or even 19th century classrooms, which have not been adapted or renovated for updated pedagogy.  Unfortunately this occurs often.

Classrooms that are overcrowded with students or that are used to store copious amounts of curriculum or resources are not conducive to student movement and the flexibility that will increase teaching options.  Each student should have their own desk or place at a table, and ample space to move around for differing activities.

In order to increase the space that each student has, there are a number of solutions, including building bigger classrooms or reducing the number of students in current classrooms.  When these first two suggestions may not be viable options, the classroom space can be increased by simply not allowing classrooms to be used for storage.  Only the items needed for the current instruction should be in the classroom (Duncanson, 2014).  Clutter is working against academic achievement and should be eliminated (Duncanson, 2014).

In addition to creating more space, it is important to look at how to use the space effectively for the new pedagogies that are being encouraged.  One type of learning that has evidence of working well with millennials is team-based learning.  Millennials are relational and enjoy working in teams (Elmore, 2010).  In order for teachers to encourage team oriented projects, students need places conducive to group work.  Traditional classrooms can at times be rearranged for these activities; however, this is not the optimal solution.

Classrooms with more open space create opportunities for students to physically move around and form groups to work together.  This is just one of many reasons that open floor space has been shown to increase academic achievement scores (Duncanson, 2014).

Millennials also learn well through project based learning and active learning (Pearlman, 2010).   These types of learning call for space that will allow for different learning centers for the various aspects of project based learning and active learning.   Just as with team learning, in order to be able to encourage project based learning, teachers will need to be able to provide places for the students to work on projects and to move freely from one stage to the next.

“Open space changes classroom dynamics.” (Duncanson, 2014, p. 29).  Whatever can be done to open up classroom space to increase flexibility and allow more movement could be beneficial to academic learning.

As stated earlier, these are only a few of the types of learning that need to be considered when designing learning spaces for current and future learners.  One thing that is certain is that by continuing education in traditional classroom settings without changing the learning environment, the environment is being allowed to “dictate” what pedagogy the teacher must use. (Pearlman, 2010).

If teaching with pedagogy that calls for classroom flexibility and student movement is what is expected from our current educators, then it is imperative to examine and adjust the physical classrooms to make such 21st century teaching successful.

Printable Version of Blog Post

References

Duncanson E. (2014). Lasting effects of creating classroom space: A study of teacher behavior. The Journal of the International Society for Educational Planning, 21(3), 29-40.

Elmore, T. (2010). Generation iY: our last chance to save their future. Atlanta, GA: Poet Gardener.

Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 116-147.

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

Published on

By Dr. Linda Lemasters, November 11, 2014.

In October 1990, the then Senator Joe Biden introduced The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA)--originally known as the Crime Control Act of 1990--and in November of the same year George H. W. Bush signed it into law.  The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a federal law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that a reasonable person knows is a school.  The original law has had a rocky journey through the courts, and the current version has yet to be tested in the United States Supreme Court.  Most likely all of us have seen the signs as we enter a public school that we are entering a gun-free zone.  Reasonable people understand exactly what this means.

Our hearts were broken once more when a few weeks ago a young high school student entered his school in Marysville, Oregon, just 30 miles north of Seattle and took his friends’ lives and his own.  Although I have a doctoral student conducting research in the area of school violence, I decided to research the topic myself.  Please let me assure you, there is no lack of information.  I sadly discovered a history in the U.S. that dates back to the 1700s.  In the late 1980s and early 90s, however, the statistics showed a sharp increase in the number of school shootings—perhaps the impetus for VP Biden’s GFSZA law.  Later in the 1990s through 2010 the rates of school violence have decreased (Neuman, 2012); school has been noted as the safest place students can be.  I state this very hesitantly, as it brings no comfort to the parents, who have lost children, and others, who have lost loved ones.

Schools try to put their sense of community back together after such a tragedy, and communities often express what Marysville did after the shooting, we “will be forever changed as a result of the senseless and tragic incident that took place on the morning of October 24 and know that healing will not happen overnight.  We remain committed to taking this journey together, step by step, holding up the families most impacted and helping our communities heal” (CBS News, 2014).

Commentators only express aloud what we all are thinking, “Why?”

  • Some speak of the irresistible stage; others talk of the media frenzy and publicity as motivating factors.
  • It seems that some shooters want to get back at those who have hurt them, picked on them, and bullied them.
  • Research has shown that some shooters are themselves victims of violence at home.
  • Other perpetrators, sadly, may have neglected mental problems (Robertz, 2007).

While the list could be endless, one fact stands out.  There does not seem to be an understanding of the value of life.  Perhaps the better question is “What can we do to emphasize the value of life itself?”

While we at the EFC will continue to collect and disseminate educational research on the school facility and best practices concerning behavioral safety from intruders to avoid violent acts, we also encourage community discussions on what can be done to exhibit and emphasize a greater value on human life.   We enlist you to do the same.  Let’s consider and act on environmental influences, cyber abuse, family environments, and community environments.  Enlist our parents, students, businesses, industries, and local governments, anyone we can find, who will listen.  The life of each child is important.  Call out moviemakers, ask our entertainers to remember they are role models, encourage our athletes, involve our community activists; our children’s lives are important; it will take more that just our schools to have an impact on this problem.

We have had the GFSZA, or some form of it, for 34 years.  Simply telling someone not to bring a gun on school property is not enough.  The former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, stated, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”  I would welcome a discussion on how you, the reader, are going to make a difference.  Can we find ways to model the respect for life to our children?

Printable Version of Blog Post

References:

CBS News. 2014, November 8.  Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-school-shooting-victim-andrew-fryberg-dies-in-seattle/

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

Neuman, S.  (2012, March 16). Violence in Schools:  How Big A Problem Is It?  NPR News.  Retrieved November 11, 2014 from http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148758783/violence-in-schools-how-big-a-problem-is-it

Robertz, F. J. (2007, July 30).  Deadly Dreams:  What Motivates School Shootings?   Scientific American,  Retrieved November 11, 2014 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-dreams/

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.

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.