Skip to content

21st Century School Fund, National Council on School Facilities & U.S. Green Building Council, 2016

School facilities have a direct impact on student learning, student and staff health, and school finances. But too many students attend school facilities that fall short of providing 21st century learning environments because essential maintenance and capital improvements are underfunded. In 2016’s State of Our Schools report, we compile and analyze the best available school district data about U.S. K–12 public school facilities funding. In fact, the report projects that going forward our nation will under-invest in school buildings by $46 billion annually.

View Report

by E. M. Wallace, MPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Dr. Linda Lemasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda Lemasters, Director, Education Facilities Clearinghouse

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

Facilities.net

A correlation exists between the cleanliness of school facilities and students’ academic achievements, according to a recent study of college students nationwide. The study, Cleanliness and Learning in Higher Education, is based on the five levels of clean identified in APPA's (Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers) Custodial Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities.

View Report

You’re reading this right now because you care about the health of your school and community. By adopting a green cleaning program at your school, you can positively affect the health of each and every person who enters its doors.

Transitioning to a green cleaning program is a big change, but it’s a change that many schools have already made—with positive results. Learn more about why green cleaning is important and how you can get started at your school.

View Resource

Thorton, 2006

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between building conditions and student achievement of students identified in the subgroups of poverty and minority in high schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The targeted population was identified by using the study conducted by Crook (2006) which included information obtained from seventy-two high schools across the Commonwealth of Virginia. Building conditions used in the study were based upon the responses received from principals on the Commonwealth Assessment of Physical Environment (CAPE) form.

The scaled scores of economically disadvantaged students and minority students on the Standards of Learning tests administered in grades nine through eleven during the 2004-2005 school year were used to measure student achievement. The status of economically disadvantaged students was controlled by the classification of a student receiving free and reduced-priced lunch during the 2004-2005 school year. The status of minority students was controlled by ethnicity as reported by the individual schools to the Virginia Department of Education for the 2004-2005 school year.

View Dissertation

Stevenson, 2001

This research project sought to determine if a relationship exists between school academic outcomes and school facilities characteristics. To address this issue, data were gathered from a variety of sources including research literature, state data files, principal questionnaires, and focus groups.

View Dissertation

NCES, 2006

During the last decade, the U.S. Department of Education has released reports describing and evaluating the physical condition of schools (Lewis et al. 2000; U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] 1995). According to a 1995 report from the General Accounting Office, this nation has invested hundreds of billions of dollars on school infrastructure so that children are properly educated and prepared for the future in school facilities that are well-maintained, clean, safe, and secure (U.S. GAO 1995).

Decent, safe, and secure facilities are essential to successful educational programs. Creating a safe school environment is necessary in order for teachers to teach effectively and for students to be receptive to learning. While typical thinking regarding “safe school” environments often involves a school that is free of weapons, illegal drugs, student intimidation, and theft, other factors regarding the physical condition and appearance of school facilities, such as noise levels and cleanliness are important to consider as well.

View Report