Skip to content

Tag: Curriculum

Published on

Marable, 2015

There are times when local education agencies (LEAs) go to their governing bodies for funding for school designs that include construction of a green school—a school that supports sustainable practices or has environmentally friendly facilities.  While this type of construction can be supported in the research for reasons that include health, safety, and planet friendly practice, there often is little said about the instructional components of such facilities.  This paper will explain how the components of green schools can enhance the implementation of environmental education curricula that help support 21st century skills.  Currently, there is no set standard for the implementation of environmental education in green schools or for schools that utilize the building as a teaching tool for students. A recent study (Marable, 2015) was conducted in Virginia to help establish pedagogical best practices for environmental education, while describing how educators currently use LEED buildings as a teaching tool to support sustainable practices. The findings from the study indicated teachers employ practices that are consistent with current emphases on environmental education.  Data also supported that educators take pride in their buildings and incorporate the facility as a teaching tool in a variety of instructional practices throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The findings of this recent study and other relevant research explain and provide real examples of current environmental education practices being utilized to support 21st century skills within LEED certified schools.  Examples of how the facility may be used as a teaching tool in environmental education are provided by school grade levels (elementary and secondary) and by building features in LEED construction.

View White Paper

Published on

National Wildlife Federation granted host status from FEE to establish Eco-Schools programming for the United States

In December 2008, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) was granted host status for K-12 schools in the United States by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE).  This honor - this charge - fits seamlessly with NWF's work to promote environmental education, connect people with nature and raise awareness about the impacts to people and wildlife from climate change.

Through school-based action teams of students, administrators, educators and community volunteers, NWF's Eco-Schools USA combines effective "green" management of the school grounds, the facilities and the curriculum; truly providing students with a unique, research and application based learning experience.

View Article

Published on

U. S. Green Building Council, Hennick

Virginia Beach City Public Schools goes to the head of the class, integrating sustainability into their buildings as well as classroom teachings.

Last January, at a wooded site 10 miles from the ocean, the Virginia Beach City Public Schools unveiled their latest high-tech teaching tool. Officials hope that it will promote collaborative and interactive learning, particularly around sustainability issues, and they’ve invested considerable resources in the device. It took two years to assemble, takes up more space than an aircraft carrier, and came with a price tag of $102 million.

It’s called a school building.

Floyd E. Kellam High School is the district’s eighth Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building, with a ninth under construction. The buildings are a mix of basic LEED certification, Silver, Gold, and Platinum (Kellam is still being certified, and is likely to come in at either Silver or Gold), but school officials are focused on more than just getting plaques that they can hang at the buildings’ entrances. They want to infuse the district’s teaching and learning with lessons about sustainability—and that means using the buildings themselves to educate students and community members about the impact of the built environment.

View Article

Published on

By Angel Ford.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printable Blog

References

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

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

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

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

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

Lumpkin, Goodwin, Hope, & Lutfi, 2014

Much of the focus in the literature in raising student achievement has included parental involvement, principal leadership, quality of instruction, students’ socioeconomic status, curriculum, and use of technology. Limited empirical research relates the condition of the school building as a variable that affects student achievement. Furthermore, there is no research that has examined the impact of building codes on achievement outcomes in the state of Florida. This research determined whether academic achievement of 4th-, 8th-, 9th-, and 10th-grade students as measured by the mathematics and reading subtests of the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) increased in new school buildings compliant to the 2000 Florida State Requirements for Educational Facilities. A causal-comparative design determined whether the independent variables, old and new school building influenced student achievement as measured by students’ FCAT mathematics and reading subtest scores. The control group was two cohorts of 4th-, 8th-, 9th-, and 10th-grade students who attended school in old buildings. The experimental group was two cohorts of 4th-, 8th-, 9th-, and 10th-grade students who attended school in new buildings. Transition from an old school into a new school was the treatment. Two hypotheses were formulated for testing and the research question for the inquiry was whether the percentage of students passing the FCAT mathematics and reading subtests increases after transitioning from an old school building into a new 2000 UBC (Uniform Building Code) compliant facility.

View Article

Published on

Summers Tremewan, 2015

Sustainability in the design of K-12 public schools in the United States is gaining momentum due to the environmental, educational, health, and financial benefits afforded students, staff, the district, and the wider community. Detroit Public Schools is no exception to this trend. However, as is often the case with sustainability in the built environment, Detroit Public Schools’ focus has been heavily biased toward the building systems and building envelope, with little attention given to sustainability on the site. While not incorporated into these projects initially, the absence of site sustainability presents an opportunity for improved environmental stewardship at these otherwise exemplary schools. This study provides a broad overview of sustainable site design techniques available to urban K-12 school renovations, specific and quantifiable recommendations for their execution, and an example application of those recommendations at Detroit’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School. Further, the study provides an evaluation of the application from the landscape architect’s perspective. Site sustainability techniques focused on in the study include stormwater management, landscape and irrigation, food systems and urban agriculture, and on-site energy generation, all from the point of view and discipline of the landscape architect attempting to design a functional, aesthetically-pleasing, and environmentally-stewarded school campus. Areas where Detroit is already a leader in sustainability are noted, such as with its Food and Nutrition Program and the incorporation of urban agriculture in its food system and curriculum. Affording Detroit Public Schools the tools necessary to accomplish its next frontier of sustainability, this study seeks to help cement the district’s leadership in this capacity.

View Article

Published on

Huang, Sorensen, Davis, Frerichs,  Brittin,  Celentano, Callahan, &  Trowbridge, 2013

We developed a new tool, Healthy Eating Design Guidelines for School Architecture, to provide practitioners in architecture and public health with a practical set of spatially organized and theory-based strategies for making school environments more conducive to learning about and practicing healthy eating by optimizing physical resources and learning spaces. The design guidelines, developed through multidisciplinary collaboration, cover 10 domains of the school food environment (eg, cafeteria, kitchen, garden) and 5 core healthy eating design principles. A school redesign project in Dillwyn, Virginia, used the tool to improve the schools’ ability to adopt a healthy nutrition curriculum and promote healthy eating. The new tool, now in a pilot version, is expected to evolve as its components are tested and evaluated through public health and design research.

View Article

Published on

Kerlin, Santos, & Bennet, 2015

Many K-12 school districts are embracing energy conservation efforts and constructing environmentally sustainable buildings with the purpose of lowering operating costs of their facilities. Investments in green infrastructure to improve operating efficiencies and occupant health are important but the impact of green buildings on instructional practice should also be considered. This study focused on teachers’ perceptions of the many impacts of a new sustainably designed middle school on students and teachers and explores the use of the school as a learning laboratory. Grades 6-8 teachers participated in open-ended focus group discussions near the end of the first school year in their new green building. An emergent coding framework was created to characterize conversation topics. Analysis of the coding yielded insights into seven major categories of teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the new green school on their work in the building and their students’ attitudes and academic performance. The seven major coding categories of green infrastructure, student behavior, student awareness, teacher awareness, curriculum, health, and professional development were further analyzed to formulate considerations and recommendations for others to capitalize on the instructional potential of sustainably designed school facilities as learning laboratories.

View Article

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.