Is there a link between cognitive functioning / learning / test scores and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in schools? Here’s what we know: there is a large body of research out there regarding test scores and IAQ. I’ll simplify the discussion by using the term “test scores” because test scores are more concrete than cognitive functioning or learning. Here are a few of the many studies on this subject. Green building rating systems typically address the importance of IAQ in schools.
If you’re only going to read one study on the benefits of green schools, this is a good one to read. This study links a lot of different sustainable strategies in schools and student success. Greening America’s Schools, was written by Gregory Kats, produced by Capital E and co-sponsored by the American Institute of Architects. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2908 .
One study often referred to is that done by Dr. Richard Shaughnessy, et. al. (Dr. Shaughnessy has served as Program Director of Indoor Air Quality Research at the University of Tulsa since 1987), and published in the Journal of Indoor Air (December 2006), and is titled Association Between Substandard Classroom Ventilation Rates and Students’ Academic Achievement. The study was done to see if there was a relationship between increased ventilation and test scores. It was discovered that indoor air quality had a significant impact on test scores. This study used data from 55 Fifth grade elementary school classrooms, with student performance based on standardized math and reading tests. Ventilation rates were calculated from CO2 concentrations. Other factors such as male/female ratios, free lunch program, limited English, gifted student percentage, absenteeism rate and ethnicity were all neutralized.
Basically when you bring sufficient outdoor air into classrooms you alleviate the concentrations of allergens, viruses, and toxins from things like art and science materials. Also if students are falling asleep in certain classrooms but not others it can be due to large concentrations of carbon dioxide. Common sense stuff but it seems school designers aren’t doing a good job of providing sufficient air flow in schools. (This also helps with what teachers report as smelly students coming into class after P.E.).
The study showed that increased ventilation rates had a significant impact on math and reading test scores. With a ventilation volume of less than 5 cubic feet per minute the mean math scores were 56.32 and the mean reading scores were 47.73. When ventilation rates were over 10 cubic feet per minute mean math scores were 64.46 and reading scores were 54.27. This represented a 14.7% increase in math scores and a 13.7% increase in reading scores with improved ventilation.
A 2002 study involved Charles Young Elementary School in Washington, DC. The school had increased the Indoor Environmental Quality in their school through a comprehensive program and achieved the following results: (Source: Healthy School Environment and Enhanced Educational Performance – The Case of Charles Young Elementary School, Washington, DC, Carpet & Rug Institute, January 2002.):
Reading scores at basic or above increased from 59% to 75%; math scores at basic or above increased from 51% to 76%; and school attendance increased by 4%: from 89% to 93%.
And you can check your school in this USA Today Special Report on pollution near schools: http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index .
Shaughnessy study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00686.x/abstract
Charles Young study: http://www.carpet-rug.org/pdf_word_docs/020112_Charles_Young.pdf
Kats study: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2908
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
EPA Releases New Voluntary School Siting Guidelines
New help has just arrived for school districts’ site planning needs. On October 3, 2011, The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency released new voluntary school siting guidelines. These new guidelines will help schools / local educational agencies (LEA), to decide whether to renovate an existing school or build a new school on the current site or on a new site. This document is a good roadmap for LEA’s, architects, and others who are involve in school siting decisions.
The guidelines look at the decision of school siting from a public health standpoint. The aspect of the need for the community’s involvement in working through this process, and how the outcome will be better when the public is apprised of the issues and decisions throughout the process, is also addressed. (If you’ve ever tried to make changes in your school district/school, you know the importance of fully involving the public at all junctures in order to obtain public support.)
EPA used input from school districts, teachers, health care and environmental professionals, other Federal agencies, states, children’s health and environmental organizations, and others, in putting together the guidelines.
The EPA was tasked with producing this information after Congress initiated the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in December of 2007, with the criteria of taking into account the potential for pollution at a given site, transportation modes available, energy savings, and the possibility of using a school as an emergency shelter.
The guidelines use a step-by-step process, starting with questions to answer, then lists the steps to take to do an environmental review, steps for the gathering of data, and the making of a decision.
The 152-page document doesn’t address existing schools, but does encourage existing schools to use EPA’s Healthy SEAT (Healthy Schools Environmental Assessment Tool) to provide a healthy existing school.
Here are the links for both the new School Siting Guidelines and for Healthy SEAT.
http://www.epa.gov/schools/siting/download.html
http://www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/
The guidelines look at the decision of school siting from a public health standpoint. The aspect of the need for the community’s involvement in working through this process, and how the outcome will be better when the public is apprised of the issues and decisions throughout the process, is also addressed. (If you’ve ever tried to make changes in your school district/school, you know the importance of fully involving the public at all junctures in order to obtain public support.)
EPA used input from school districts, teachers, health care and environmental professionals, other Federal agencies, states, children’s health and environmental organizations, and others, in putting together the guidelines.
The EPA was tasked with producing this information after Congress initiated the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in December of 2007, with the criteria of taking into account the potential for pollution at a given site, transportation modes available, energy savings, and the possibility of using a school as an emergency shelter.
The guidelines use a step-by-step process, starting with questions to answer, then lists the steps to take to do an environmental review, steps for the gathering of data, and the making of a decision.
The 152-page document doesn’t address existing schools, but does encourage existing schools to use EPA’s Healthy SEAT (Healthy Schools Environmental Assessment Tool) to provide a healthy existing school.
Here are the links for both the new School Siting Guidelines and for Healthy SEAT.
http://www.epa.gov/schools/siting/download.html
http://www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/
Friday, October 21, 2011
Managing Project Costs
One of the more difficult aspects of Educational Facility Planning is managing the cost of the project. From the inception to the completion of the project, you must constantly review where you stand related to cost. Building costs are just a part of the equation when looking at the entire budget of a project. Other costs will include Architectural and Engineering services, purchasing and surveying of land, geotechnical or soil investigations, construction material testing, furniture-fixtures & equipment (FFE), roads and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, and power requirements to just name a few. All of these items totalled could be as much or more than 30% of the cost of the buildling.
When looking at strictly the cost of the building, it is governed by three factors; the quality of the bldg materials, the quantity of space, and the schedule in which to build the project. As I mentioned in a previous blog regarding Tech specs, this is where you define the quality of the bldg materials. The difference between providing a vinyl tile floor or one using terrazzo is significant. Vinyl tile costs $1.25/sf installed, terrazzo is approx $25/sf. You must also understand the difference in the life cycle of the material being used. The vinyl tile flooring is considered to be in the range of 15 to 20 years before it will have to be replaced. The terrazzo flooring is considered to be a lifetime product. When you average out the maintenance costs of each, you may find that the terrazzo is the more suitable product for the life cycle of the building. You must then determine if the upfront costs can be afforded. This is just one example of the types of decisions that must be made when designing a structure. Your design professional should be able to guide you through these decisions, but you need to be able to be conversant with the issues.
The second factor is the quantity of space. As the design progresses through the process, it is often easy to see additional needs that may not have been addressed early on. When adding space to the project always have the cost estimate revised as well.
The final factor is the time given to construct the project. If the schedule is compressed and the construction firm must provide additional labor to meet that schedule, it will affect the cost. Also if work is added to the project and the time line is extended, the contractor will incurr additional overhead for staffing the project and the cost again is affected.
The question I get asked the most is 'how much per square foot does a school cost these days?'. I always answer, "it depends". It depends on the three factors I have
discussed above. If you can tell me the quantity and quality of space you want, then I can tell what it will cost. We are in interesting times in regards to construction costs. The effects of the recession have kept building costs down the last two years, however we are now seeing a slow trend of rising construction costs. I will polish up my crystal ball to look into the future to see what buildings will cost in the near future, only time will tell.
Michael King AIA
When looking at strictly the cost of the building, it is governed by three factors; the quality of the bldg materials, the quantity of space, and the schedule in which to build the project. As I mentioned in a previous blog regarding Tech specs, this is where you define the quality of the bldg materials. The difference between providing a vinyl tile floor or one using terrazzo is significant. Vinyl tile costs $1.25/sf installed, terrazzo is approx $25/sf. You must also understand the difference in the life cycle of the material being used. The vinyl tile flooring is considered to be in the range of 15 to 20 years before it will have to be replaced. The terrazzo flooring is considered to be a lifetime product. When you average out the maintenance costs of each, you may find that the terrazzo is the more suitable product for the life cycle of the building. You must then determine if the upfront costs can be afforded. This is just one example of the types of decisions that must be made when designing a structure. Your design professional should be able to guide you through these decisions, but you need to be able to be conversant with the issues.
The second factor is the quantity of space. As the design progresses through the process, it is often easy to see additional needs that may not have been addressed early on. When adding space to the project always have the cost estimate revised as well.
The final factor is the time given to construct the project. If the schedule is compressed and the construction firm must provide additional labor to meet that schedule, it will affect the cost. Also if work is added to the project and the time line is extended, the contractor will incurr additional overhead for staffing the project and the cost again is affected.
The question I get asked the most is 'how much per square foot does a school cost these days?'. I always answer, "it depends". It depends on the three factors I have
discussed above. If you can tell me the quantity and quality of space you want, then I can tell what it will cost. We are in interesting times in regards to construction costs. The effects of the recession have kept building costs down the last two years, however we are now seeing a slow trend of rising construction costs. I will polish up my crystal ball to look into the future to see what buildings will cost in the near future, only time will tell.
Michael King AIA
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Daylight Harvesting
One of the intriguing and interesting ways to build sustainably is to use the practice of daylight harvesting or “daylighting” to light a building. As long as there have been windows, daylight has been used to light buildings, but in the era of (relatively inexpensive) electricity, good design practices went out the window, so to speak, and little attention was paid to this aspect of building design. Window placement was then determined based on what the designer was trying to do with the building’s façade, and in many cases, particularly in the 1980’s, it was fashionable to design buildings (particularly schools) without windows as it was considered to be “too distracting” to have windows. LEED has a credit for daylighting – IEQ credit 8.1.
Knowing what we know about human health, hormone production, circadian rhythms, and the various colors and intensities of daylight at different times of the year, one can assume that daylighting is important in human health, therefore in student learning.
Studies show some interesting benefits associated with the use of daylighting. Studies show students in daylit schools experience 3.2 to 3.8 fewer absent days. Studies also show students achieving higher test scores. Fewer dental caries and increased student growth are another correlation between daylighting and student health. In addition, students in daylit schools show better attention spans and better work habits. Schools also report teachers having fewer sick days when teaching in daylit schools. These are a few of the more well-known studies available on this high-performance building strategy.
Daylit buildings also offer substantial cost savings by reducing energy use. Since electrical lighting heats buildings, when lights are turned off cooling loads go down. Since commercial buildings use more cooling, on average, in the course of a year than heating (due in part to lighting, computer and human heat generation), turning off the lights realizes an immediate benefit for both lighting and mechanical systems. A second benefit is that of reduced electrical lighting, which will decrease utility bills. A third benefit of daylighting occurs when the use of HVAC is reduced; then HVAC noise is reduced. (Noise is a big issue in schools and is associated with difficulty in student learning.)
There is no one single successful strategy in the use of daylighting to achieve LEED credit 8.1. Windows should be strategically placed to provide light but not glare. Light should be bounced into areas further away from windows by the use of light shelves and/or reflective surfaces. Other methods are to use clerestory windows or skylights (skylights should be used with caution in areas prone to severe hailstorms). The use of sunshades will reduce glare while providing natural daylight. Interior lighting controls need to be used in order to maximize daylight harvesting. Use building modeling (LEED prerequisite) to determine an overall strategy for successful daylight harvesting. The use of daylight harvesting will create significant cost savings for the building owner and improved outcomes for students.
Student outcomes: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28049.pdf
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (research conducted by the Heschong Mahone Group, Fair Oaks, CA), Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human and Performance, 1999.
Energy usage: http://www.lightnowblog.com/2009/01/study-captures-daylightings-hvac-and-lighting-energy-savings-impacts/
Daylight harvesting strategies: http://www.inive.org/members_area/medias/pdf/Inive%5CIBPSA%5CBS05_0501_508.pdf
Knowing what we know about human health, hormone production, circadian rhythms, and the various colors and intensities of daylight at different times of the year, one can assume that daylighting is important in human health, therefore in student learning.
Studies show some interesting benefits associated with the use of daylighting. Studies show students in daylit schools experience 3.2 to 3.8 fewer absent days. Studies also show students achieving higher test scores. Fewer dental caries and increased student growth are another correlation between daylighting and student health. In addition, students in daylit schools show better attention spans and better work habits. Schools also report teachers having fewer sick days when teaching in daylit schools. These are a few of the more well-known studies available on this high-performance building strategy.
Daylit buildings also offer substantial cost savings by reducing energy use. Since electrical lighting heats buildings, when lights are turned off cooling loads go down. Since commercial buildings use more cooling, on average, in the course of a year than heating (due in part to lighting, computer and human heat generation), turning off the lights realizes an immediate benefit for both lighting and mechanical systems. A second benefit is that of reduced electrical lighting, which will decrease utility bills. A third benefit of daylighting occurs when the use of HVAC is reduced; then HVAC noise is reduced. (Noise is a big issue in schools and is associated with difficulty in student learning.)
There is no one single successful strategy in the use of daylighting to achieve LEED credit 8.1. Windows should be strategically placed to provide light but not glare. Light should be bounced into areas further away from windows by the use of light shelves and/or reflective surfaces. Other methods are to use clerestory windows or skylights (skylights should be used with caution in areas prone to severe hailstorms). The use of sunshades will reduce glare while providing natural daylight. Interior lighting controls need to be used in order to maximize daylight harvesting. Use building modeling (LEED prerequisite) to determine an overall strategy for successful daylight harvesting. The use of daylight harvesting will create significant cost savings for the building owner and improved outcomes for students.
Student outcomes: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28049.pdf
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (research conducted by the Heschong Mahone Group, Fair Oaks, CA), Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylighting and Human and Performance, 1999.
Energy usage: http://www.lightnowblog.com/2009/01/study-captures-daylightings-hvac-and-lighting-energy-savings-impacts/
Daylight harvesting strategies: http://www.inive.org/members_area/medias/pdf/Inive%5CIBPSA%5CBS05_0501_508.pdf
Green Building Rating Systems – Summary
I’ve reviewed three of the more-well-known green building rating systems in previous weeks. Since the strategies for building green are fairly similar, a lot of the information used in determining the green building ratings are somewhat similar. The delivery systems of these rating systems differ.
The best way to see which system is going to work best for your organization and your school is to do more research applicable to your specific goals. There are resources available to help you determine which is best. You can hire a green building consultant to lead your school district or school through a needs assessment, and after obtaining information on the systems, you can make a decision. Do the research; the data is out there to show that green building does not necessarily cost more. When you think about green from the standpoint of how much money is spent over the lifetime of a building, you need to build green from a standpoint of spending your money wisely. If you know that you can build a building that will alleviate utility costs, provide a healthier environment, and reduce absenteeism, why wouldn’t you build that way? Use ACEF as one of your resources. Start with a district-wide Indoor Environmental Quality program.
A few takeaway facts:
CHPS: 86 completed CHPS schools and approximately 300 underway seeking CHPS recognition.
Green Globes: Over 150 commercial facilities in the U.S. have been certified using Green Globes.
LEED: There are 8,508 LEED Certified projects and 23,775 LEED Registered projects.
You can build green for both new and for existing buildings. Industry projections point to an avalanche of existing building green building certifications in the coming years, since there are so many more existing schools than new. Existing schools have many more challenges to overcome in maintenance and Indoor Environmental Quality, among other issues. Thirty to forty percent of a typical building’s life cycle costs occur during the design and construction phase, with the remaining sixty to seventy percent cost occurring during the rest of the building’s life. Since the design and construction phase of a building’s life cycle is typically 2-5 years, with the rest of the life cycle at 45-50 years, it only makes sense to maximize the return on the more expensive phase of a building’s life cycle (that’s in constant dollars).
www.chps.org
www.gbci.org
www.greenglobes.com
www.nist.gov
The best way to see which system is going to work best for your organization and your school is to do more research applicable to your specific goals. There are resources available to help you determine which is best. You can hire a green building consultant to lead your school district or school through a needs assessment, and after obtaining information on the systems, you can make a decision. Do the research; the data is out there to show that green building does not necessarily cost more. When you think about green from the standpoint of how much money is spent over the lifetime of a building, you need to build green from a standpoint of spending your money wisely. If you know that you can build a building that will alleviate utility costs, provide a healthier environment, and reduce absenteeism, why wouldn’t you build that way? Use ACEF as one of your resources. Start with a district-wide Indoor Environmental Quality program.
A few takeaway facts:
CHPS: 86 completed CHPS schools and approximately 300 underway seeking CHPS recognition.
Green Globes: Over 150 commercial facilities in the U.S. have been certified using Green Globes.
LEED: There are 8,508 LEED Certified projects and 23,775 LEED Registered projects.
You can build green for both new and for existing buildings. Industry projections point to an avalanche of existing building green building certifications in the coming years, since there are so many more existing schools than new. Existing schools have many more challenges to overcome in maintenance and Indoor Environmental Quality, among other issues. Thirty to forty percent of a typical building’s life cycle costs occur during the design and construction phase, with the remaining sixty to seventy percent cost occurring during the rest of the building’s life. Since the design and construction phase of a building’s life cycle is typically 2-5 years, with the rest of the life cycle at 45-50 years, it only makes sense to maximize the return on the more expensive phase of a building’s life cycle (that’s in constant dollars).
www.chps.org
www.gbci.org
www.greenglobes.com
www.nist.gov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)