Facility Design and Learning - Research Paper Example

s of learning and education have been a long-standing fixture in American history. The roots of the American education system back tobefore the colonies won their independence from Great Britain. Harvard College was founded in 1636, and shortly thereafter the College of William and Mary in Virginia (Hamby, 2005). The Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1647 enacted a law which required every village and town with more than 50 families to establish a grammar school, which mainly acted as a Latin school to prepare the young men and boys for college (Hamby, 2005). Though there were few actual schools in the Southern colonies due to the rural environment, tutors were provided for the children by wealthy plantation owners, while in backwater or frontier areas, far from towns and ‘organized’ schools, villages endeavored to bring ‘learned ministers’ to the area to assist with education (Hamby, 2005). Free education as we know it today did not come into existence until the 1840s, when a popular movement began with education reformers Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. Working in Massachusetts and Connecticut, these two men helped to create statewide “common-school” systems that would provide education for everyone. (“Honor America’s Schools”, 2002). Aided by common-school advocates, they worked to establish a free elementary education accessible to everyone and financed by public funds. (“Honor America’s Schools”, 2002). Public education across the United States remains much the same as the common-school movement that was started in Massachusetts and Connecticut over a century ago. Public education is still free to those that wish to use it; however, American students are scoring lower than other countries in subjects such as science and math (“Associated Press”, 2007), and the very buildings that were constructed for their education are now being examined as the cause behind the lower test scores. The first cause that is being examined in the correlation between learning and learning facilities are the buildings themselves. According to a study conducted by the Tennessee Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) in 2003, school facility factors such as building age and condition, among others, can affect student health, safety, sense of self, and psychological state. Further evidence of this was determined by Glen I. Earthman in his 2002 study entitled School Facility Conditions and Student Achievement. In this study, Mr. Earthman stated that, when the socioeconomic factors of a classroom were controlled, researchers frequently found a difference between 5 and 17 percentile points between achievements of students in poor quality school buildings when compared with students in standard quality school buildings. Though the terms of poor quality and standard quality were not specifically defined in the study, the evidence was clear – the quality of the building affected the ability of students to learn. The elements of facility design that can affect learning go far beyond the ‘brick and mortar’ approach to a school. Perhaps the biggest contributor inside a school to a student’s learning is the air that they breathe. According to the National Center for Education Statistics 2003 Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities, Indoor Air Quality, commonly referred to as IAQ, encompasses almost anything and everything that affects air in an educational building, from mold and pollens to dust, paint odors and other allergens. In 1995, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that fifteen thousand schools in America suffered from poor IAQ, which affected more than eight million children in the American public school systems across the country (Schneider, 2002). Poor IAQ has been linked to a number of issues that affect student performance. Among the issues are eye, nose, and throat irritation, fatigue, headache, nausea, and sinus problems (Szuba, & Young, 2003). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a 2000 study, referred to these symptoms in total as “sick building syndrome” (Schneider, 2002). Also linked to the presence of “sick building syndrome”, according to the EPA, are higher rates of asthma and severe allergies to harmful substances such as mold. Most discussions linking IAQ to student performance depend on a series of simple logical links: poor indoor air quality makes both students and teachers sick, and sick students and teachers cannot perform as well as healthy ones (Schneider, 2002). But why the focus on schools alone, and not office buildings, or churches, or other places where people gather? According to a 2009 article published in School Planning and Management magazine, schools are foremost on the list of concerns due to the fact that schools have unique characteristics that make them more of a concern than other buildings. For example, as stated in the article, a typical school can have four times as many occupants as an office building for the same amount of floor space, leading to much greater occupant density. Other concerns were that new classrooms may be built, or old classrooms subdivided, without taking into account the existing ventilation system (Bloech, 2009). Additionally, there was the potential for various activities within the school that could contribute indoor pollutants into the air, including science labs, art classes, and vocational classrooms such as auto shops, photography, and woodshops (Bloech, 2009). Closely following on the heels of poor indoor air quality and student performance is the issue of climate control. Both temperature and humidity have a drastic effect on indoor air quality, promoting or inhibiting such substances as mold and bacteria, which can in turn affect students at many different levels. Molds and allergens can lead to respiratory illness, and can trigger allergy or asthma attacks along with worsening allergy or asthma symptoms (Bloech, 2009). According to Mark Schneider of the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, researchers have been studying the temperature range associated with better learning levels for several decades. As far back as 1974, researcher David P. Harner concluded that classroom temperatures above 74°F adversely affecting reading and mathematics skills, and further concluded that the ideal temperature range for effective learning of reading and mathematics was between 68°F and 73°F (Earthman, 2002). In a 1996 study of Florida classrooms, researchers found that the classrooms that had relative humidity levels of greater than 72% had visible mold growth on the ceilings and complaints of allergy symptoms associated with sick building syndrome (Schneider, 2002). From research conducted in varied and previous studies, it is becoming painfully clear that climate control is an issue not to be taken lightly in school facilities. The factors that affect learning are not limited to what cannot be seen and heard inside the classroom. According to Mark Schneider of the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, the research linking acoustics to learning is both consistent and convincing: good acoustics are fundamental to good learning. While it stands to reason that wherever there are groups of people, there will be noise, good acoustics in a school should not be limited to music rooms and auditoriums. In 1981, the Department of Health in California undertook a rigorous study to determine whether or not acoustics play a part in a student’s learning potential, in which students in grades three through six in schools that were near highways and expressways were compared with students in similar schools in quiet neighborhoods (Earthman, 2002). Earthman notes that “a very rigorous methodology and analysis were used for comparison of the scores on the California Test of Basic Skills”, and that “the mean grade equivalent scores of all students in socioeconomically matched noisy and quiet schools were compared.” He further notes that students in grades three through six in the quiet schools scored “considerably higher in reading scores” than the students in the noisy schools, and though a similar disparity in mathematics scores was present, it was not as large as that found with reading (Earthman, 2002). Further studies have confirmed the relationship between acoustics and a student’s learning potential. A 1999 study performed by outside researchers, cited by Mark Schneider of the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, examined 100 students in two New York schools, one of which was directly in the flight path of an airport. The students exposed to the air-traffic noise scored as much as 20% lower on a reading test than students in the other school (Schneider, 2002). Further studies conducted by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board on various elementary and secondary schools across the United States revealed that excessive background noise competed with the speech of teachers, aides, classmates, and audio-educational media even in classrooms that were considered “new” at the time (Schneider, 2002). Lighting issues in the classroom run parallel to the noise issues that plague students in attempting to complete their daily lessons. There is evidence to suggest that lighting may tie into a building’s age, as stated by Glen Earthman in his 2002 report. Earthman states that “many older buildings do not have the features, such as control of the thermal environment, adequate lighting, good roofs, and adequate space that are necessary for a good learning environment.” A 1999 review of seventeen different studies that took place from the mid-1930s to 1997 found that the consensus of the studies was indeed accurate: appropriate lighting improves test scores, reduces off-task behavior, and plays a significant role in student’s achievement (Schneider, 2002). What is somewhat ironic is the fact that schools are once again turning to a method of lighting that was used heavily in the past. Until the 1950s, natural light was the predominant means of illuminating most school spaces, but as electric power costs declined, so too did the amount of daylighting used in schools (Schneider, 2002). Now, with the current trends shifting towards school renovations to take buildings to the ‘green’ level, daylighting is once again making a comeback in facilities across the United States. Does installing daylighting in a classroom result in increased student performance? The answer is yes, according to a comprehensive study conducted over three school districts, in different states, with different climates. Performed by the Heschong Group and cited in College Planning and Management magazine, the study compared over 2000 classrooms in three different states: San Juan Capistrano, California, Seattle, Washington, and Fort Collins, Colorado. Daylighting conditions were found to have a marked impact on student performance, with some classrooms progressing 20% faster than other classrooms that had less daylighting. In the same study, students in classrooms with the largest window areas progressed 15% faster in math and 23% faster in reading, alongside students in classrooms with skylights that also had similarly superior results (Rivero, 2011). Alongside the quantitative evidence of learning improvement, there may well be a secondary benefit to daylighting in schools. Thomas Beck of the Colorado-based Beck Architects notes that “bright light during the day is essential to balance the body’s circadian rhythms – the internal ‘clock’ that regulates alertness, concentration, digestion, sleep, and other functions.” (Rivero, 2011). Hopefully, with this conclusion, students will be able to sleep more soundly at night, and therefore add another factor in improving their learning and achievement. Current trends in the studies between student performance and learning facilities are focusing not only on factors such as air quality and lighting, but also the number of occupants using the buildings. America is beginning to rethink the large, crowded classrooms that received their boost in the 1950’s due to the emergence of baby boomers alongside the thinking that America needed the “best and brightest” to win the Cold War (Duke, DeRoberto, & Trautvetter, 2009). Taking their place are smaller, more neighborhood-centered schools. In some states, it has become law; for example, Florida policy makers have mandated a reduction in school sizes over the next 25 years (Stevenson, 2002). The solution of smaller schools is welcome in other areas of the United States as well. Between 1990 and 1996, New York City Public Schools experienced severe overcrowding throughout the city (Earthman, 2002). Studies completed in 1995 by various researchers showed that teachers in the New York Public School system felt that the overcrowding negatively affected instructional techniques and classroom activities, while close to 40% of the students reported that they had problems concentrating in their classes when learning something new (Earthman, 2002). Fundamentally, it has been agreed by researchers and educators alike that the current trend toward smaller classroom and school settings are helping to achieve increasing graduation rates, greater achievement for students that may have failed in a traditional setting, more involvement in school co-curricular activities by students, and are also helping to overcome challenging student behavioral situations (Stevenson, 2002). According to a report published by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, some of the evidence for smaller schools and class sizes comes from testimonials from the schools themselves. In a 1999 study, Granby High School in Norfolk, Virginia, found that after restructuring its school into four smaller academies, it began to re-attract students that had left the school previously for private schools (Duke, DeRoberto, & Trautvetter, 2009). It also experienced a substantial drop in disciplinary referrals and increased reports from students that they were able to receive more individualized attention (Duke, DeRoberto, & Trautvetter, 2009). All of the factors that are being correlated in contributing to student performance and achievement can be, if necessary, placed into one large category: environmental friendliness. The popular movement for a building to renovate and become ‘green’ for the future is one that weighs heavily on the minds of educators across the United States, as stated by Dr. William S. DeJONG, C.E.O. of the educational planning firm DeJONG. Dr. DeJong is quick to cite green buildings and sustainability in the top ten trends of current educational facility planning, and states that “green buildings are on the radar screen;” along with making it clear that “school buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s to accommodate the post-WWII baby boom era are aging. Unfortunately, these were not our finest buildings.” (DeJong, 2007). The studies that have been conducted throughout the years certainly seem to support that, while the buildings do indeed provide a place of education, it is certain that some buildings are not assisting students in achievement and learning. Many correlations exist between facility design and the ability of a student to achieve and perform, from the building structure itself to the air inside, as well as acoustics and the size of the student body inhabiting the building. Thanks to current trends and the results of previous research studies, the classrooms of the future will boast not only small class sizes and breathable air, but will also be environmentally friendly and able to promote student achievement well into the 21st century and beyond. Sources: Associated Press. (2007, December 05). Other countries students surpass u.s.s on tests. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/education/05scores.html Bloech, H. (2009, May). Making the grade in indoor air quality. School Planning & Management, Retrieved from http://www.peterli.com/spm/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=2205 DeJong, W. (2007, July 23). Dejong names top ten trends in school facility planning. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfacilities.com/_coreModules/content/contentDisplay.aspx? contentID=%202902 Duke, D., DeRoberto, T., & Trautvetter, S. National Institute of Building Sciences, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. (2009). Reducing the negative effect of large schools Retrieved from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/size.pdf Earthman, G.I. (2002, October 1). School facility conditions and student academic achievement. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439 Hamby, A. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs. (2005). Outline of u.s. history Retrieved from http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/ Books/historytln.pdf Honor America’s Schools. (2002, November 02). Retrieved from http://www.reacheverychild.com/feature/ed_week.html Rivero, V. (2011, January). Shining through. College Planning & Maintenance, Retrieved from http://www.peterli.com/cpm/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=2894 Schneider, M. (2002, November). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes?. Retrieved from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf Stevenson, K. (2002, September). 10 educational trends impacting school planning and design. Retrieved from http://kieducation.com/issues.aspx?ar=168&at=1 Szuba, T., & Young, R. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Planning guide for maintaining school facilities (NCES 2003347). Alexandria, VA: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003347.pdf Young, E., Green, H., Roehrick-Patrick, L., Joseph, L., & Gibson, T. Tennessee Advisory Council on Interdepartmental Relations, (2002). Do k-12 school facilities affect education outcomes? (316338). Retrieved from http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/PDF_FILES/Education/SchFac.pdf Read More