These green efforts go beyond the building itself. Green-school measures can include restoring and preserving wetlands and wilderness areas around the schools, planting gardens, and removing invasive species (the Turner article cites a project at Clackamas HS in Oregon to "eradicate an acre of blackberries" -- which makes me think, "Wait! What's wrong with yummy blackberries?" to which the article and biologists would answer quite sensibly that blackberries "are not native to Oregon and choke out other vegetation").
Oh, but this must cost money, right? There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially not a green lunch. However, compared to the premiums the organic elites are willing to pay for their Fair Trade Coffee and all-organic tofu, green building practices are cheaper than one might presume. The Turner article says that green schools cost an average of 2% more to build. Turner then cites the "Washington High Performance School Buildings" study, a January 2005 report to the Washington State Legislature, which offers the following lower-end estimates of potential benefits to green schools:
- 5% increase in test scores
- 5% reduction in teacher turnover
- 15% reduction in absenteeism
- 25% reduction in energy use
- 38% reduction in potable water use
- 150% return on investment
- 38% reduction in wastewater production
- 22% reduction in construction waste to the landfill
- more than 1.5 million pounds reduction in CO
2 emissions
These green results make sense from a common-sense perspective. At Madison High School, an artefact of 1960s cheap SD concrete, I taught in one of several interior classrooms with no windows. How depressing, for staff and students, to be cut off from sunshine and fresh air all day! At Montrose, when we moved to our new building in 2002, I gave up a rickety but character-filled old classroom with a wall of south-facing windows for a drab room with one window facing a brick wall. Again, ugh! Learning happens better in comfortable environments, and a little thing like natural light can make a big difference in student and teacher attitudes, not to mention eergy usage. Put another way, maximizing our use of solar energy can improve our use of soul-ar energy.
Madison and Montrose aren't the only schools that could use a facelift. Coaching and judging at speech tournaments around the state, I see lots of schools that are built fast and cheap, with lots of steel and concrete, and lots of pavement all around. A little more investment in windows, recycled materials, renewable energy, and more environmentally friendly landscaping could help our budgets and our environment while providing kids with even better educational opportunities.
I would have to see some broad-based, long term statistics supporting the claims of 1,2, 3, and 6 before I believe these.
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree windows do improve a learning environment.
Anonymous asks for "broad-based, long-term statistics supporting the claims of 1, 2, 3, and 6". Hmm, let's see...
ReplyDelete--Start with the Washington State Board of Education 2005 report cited in the original post. It includes seven pages of references (over 70 specific sources, many available online), as well as a really good appendix explaining the assumptions and formulas used to estimate cost savings. The Washington 2005 study is full of "reviews of the litrature" -- i.e., they didn't just send a survey out to a few schools in Washington but read all sorts of research to come to their conclusions. For instance, just the subsection (3.2.1) on ventilation effectiveness (a significant factor in comfort, illness, and absenteeism) cites a study of CO2 levels in 434 classrooms in 22 Washington and Idaho schools, an EPA "compilation of information on indoor air quality and student performance," a study of 800 Norwegian students in 8 schools, a comparison of natural and mechanical ventilation by "Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling, and an assessment of CO2 levels in 156 Washington schools. I don't know about your standards for research, Anonymous, but it sure looks like Washington State did its homework. The Washington state legislature thought so: the Turner article points out that this study was the basis for the Washington state's enactment of legislation to require state-funded schools to follow green building principles.
--An October 2006 study of 30 green schools built since 2001 in 10 states found that an average 1.65% cost premium produced average energy savings of 33.4% and average water savings of 32.1% (Gregory Kats, "Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits," A Capital E Report, October 2006, p.6). The study says it costs an average of $3 more per square foot to build green, for which investment green schools then realize a cost savings of $12 per square foot. "For an average conventional school, building green would save enough money to pay for an additional full-time teacher" (Kats p.4 -- and that's on other states' teacher salaries, so in South Dakota, the savings probably would pay for two teachers). Kats cites the Washington 2005 study and a whole bunch (89 endnotes' worth) of other sources -- feel free to count and read them yourself to determine whether Kats figures are sufficiently "broad-based and long-term" to warrant changing how we build schools in South Dakota.
--The US Green Building Council offers the example of Elk River Area School District in Minnesota (Bob Grawey, "LEEDing Edge School," Star News [MN], 2007.04.03). District Director of Special Projects Ron Bratlie says Elk River's green-building efforts haven't cost any more than traditional methods but will save the district $300,000 annually in operating costs. Bratlie says the research he reads "supports a 25 percent improvement in math and English test scores when students get more natural light while studying in the classroom setting." 25% better scores, just from better (read, natural) light.
The Madville Times welcomes readers to submit their experiences and links to other research on this topic! And, to Anonymous, the Madville Times humbly suggests that it has met its burden of proof for at least a prima facie case; now falls to Anonymous the "burden of rejoinder" -- i.e., counter-evidence that debunks the numerous studies cited in the above sources.
Sorry, Cory, I'm not a debator and don't have time right now to read all the articles cited above. I just don't see what a "green" school has to do with improving academic scores. I think it's more to do with teachers and kids themselves. That was my only real argument.
ReplyDeleteHi, Anon!
ReplyDeleteIt's not about being a debater. You asked to see those "broad-based, long-term statistics" before believing "green" schools could improve educational outcomes; I thought I'd oblige. When you have time to read it, the evidence is there. If you don't have time to read it, that's no big problem (heck, I hardly have time myself to skim the articles for quotes and post the links here for others). Just make sure that when I start lobbying our school board members to incorporate green principles into the next school building they put up (gym, classrooms, or otherwise), you help me convince the voters that those green building principles really are worth the investment!
Oh, and I do agree that the abilities of your teachers and the ambition of your students are the basis for good education. But from a government perspective, building our schools for health, comfort, and environmental responsibility is a concrete step we can take to optimize the learning environment for our teachers and students.