Go Green

Friday’s symposium opened with a presentation from Rachel Gutter of the U.S. Green Building Council  on the Go Green Initiative. She began by defining a “green school” as one that “creates a healthy environment, conducive to learning, while saving energy, resources and money”. This will sound familiar to anyone who heard last August’s presentation by John Boecker of the 7group.

Among her other points:

• Schools should be statements of the community's commitment to the environment.
• Building design should make it easy for the occupants to “act green."
• Just as today’s students are thought to be “digital natives” they are also “sustainability natives”; our children are growing up with a commitment to the environment that didn’t exist a generation ago.
• An important aspect of sustainability is durability. We should be asking "how many generations should a school last?" instead of "how many years?"

 In response to a question about making parking lots green, there was the suggestion (perhaps not entirely practical in State College) that the lot could be covered with solar panels. Perhaps easier to implement: preferred parking for gas-efficient vehicles.

By the way: afterwards, I shared with her the link to the State College “Board Resolution on Sustainability”. She later told me, “this is the best district green schools resolution I have ever seen, hands down.”

Among the recent developments on LEED certification, the twenty categories by which projects are measured are now weighted according to their relative impact on the environment, with regional climate variations taken into consideration. There are also new standards for renovations to existing buildings that recognize the tradeoff between the environmental options that are available with new construction versus the impact on the environment that comes from the manufacture of all new materials and the disposal of demolition waste.

The symposium concluded with several presentations that addressed opportunities of integrating the physical facility with academic curriculum.

As a salesman for Lucent (a lighting controls company), several years ago Steve Beede attended a school demonstration expecting to see how the newly installed system was saving the school energy and money. Instead, he saw a demonstration of innovative teaching: a science teacher with a hand-held device who could show her class, in real-time, the impact of opening and closing the blinds on energy consumption. (Adjusting the blinds automatically adjusted the lights.) He immediately redirected his career to the development of school energy curriculum. The video is worth watching. 

Trung Le expounded on this idea of school buildings becoming the Third Teacher. Entire curriculum based on this premise now exist, some of which can be found at Greenovations. 

Building (design) basics

Several speakers at the school symposium addressed school design from the perspective of the individual classroom.

Any conversation about the impact of school climate on learning needs to consider the physical aspect. As important as good soil is to a farmer, a good learning environment requires:

• comfort (furniture that encourages good posture and in which it is possible to sit for extended periods of time. It should be noted that some of the best classroom furniture I’ve experienced has been made primarily of plastic);
• natural, evenly diffused lighting that eliminates glare;
• temperature controls;
• good room acoustics.

In spite of its direct impact on classroom instruction, good room acoustics have often been an afterthought in building design - but that’s changing. Recently developed ANSI 12.60 standards require that classrooms have a background noise level of less than 35db, with a minimum difference of 15db between the level of the speaker and the background. The choice of surface materials and HVAC systems are the two key components that affect sound quality.

Except in auditoriums, or when the teacher is especially soft-spoken, sound amplification systems are not the answer. If room acoustics are poor to begin with – a lot of hard surfaces that cause sound to reverberate - an amplification system only serves to amplify the problem.

One strategy is carpeting.  The acoustical advantages of carpeting are obvious; a major concern has been the affect on air quality.

Granted, one has consider the source, but a spokesman for the carpet industry argued that much of the evidence against carpeting is the result of poor cleaning products (many of which act as a glue for dust, etc.) and inadequate or poorly maintained equipment. It would not surprise me if his claim turned out to be true: that many vacuum cleaners suck dirt out of the carpet only to release it right back into the air. A properly maintained carpet should act as an air filter. Something to think about..

Notes from NSBA: Professional Learning Communities

I was glad that my schedule allowed me to attend the pre-conference “schools symposium”, sponsored by McGraw-Hill. A mix of architects and educators heard a series of presentations on the impact that new educational and environmental initiatives are having on school building design.

Small (or Professional) Learning Communities was a relatively new concept when I first heard it about seven years ago. The idea is now well enough established that we have many good examples of new and renovated schools in which the building design supports the SLC concept. (Our facilities planner, Bill DeJong, is an advocate – he refers to them as “pods”.)  Several board members visited Mason, Ohio last year to see one example for themselves.

The central idea is to make a school feel smaller to its students - and faculty - through organizational and building design, without sacrificing all the advantages of a comprehensive school. The intent is to create educational environments in which “the students all know one another” (they are missed when they are absent) and "all the faculty are able to sit around one table." This concept has been particularly helpful in large urban school districts that struggle with discipline, high dropout rates, and a lack of family support.

In response to these issues, research by the Gates Foundation concluded that the components of a successful high school experience are: rigor, relevance, and especially, relationships - the development of personal connections between and among students and faculty.

What resulted was the “small schools” concept: breaking large schools into pieces of 400-600 students each, in order to create more personalized environments. But as the Gates Foundation now acknowledges, reducing the overall size of a school is a strategy, not the final goal. We now see a spectrum of solutions tailored to individual communities, particularly at some traditionally successful suburban schools.

At one end of the spectrum are autonomous career academies housed in separate buildings, with student course selection limited to the offerings within their school. At the other end, students choose to identify with faculty and students of similar interest, but they are free to take classes from any of the “schools”. Under this design, it is emphasized to parents that their children are not choosing a career; rather, the choice of an “interest area” is intended to increase the student’s engagement to his/her education.

Beyond that, there is a great deal of variation. In many schools, the science labs are scattered throughout the "schools" so that science teachers have the opportunity to work with faculty from different subject areas. (One way to provide for collaboration within the science department is to locate labs near the "core".) Typically, but not always, there remains one football team and one drama club.

The architects were clear that there is no one "best" solution; each community must decide for itself. Also: flexibility is essential, so that the organization can continue to evolve as the school community learns what does, or doesn’t, work. (As part of their design plans, one school identified "one-year", "five-year" and "twenty-year” walls.)

The speakers noted that there is almost always some resistance to organizational change, driven by both personal and professional experience (especially when “the way we've always done it" has been mostly successful). The best way to create faculty enthusiasm for a different approach is to have them visit schools where these changes have been effectively implemented.

Seeing the future

Some of the things that could be seen at Park Forest Elementary School today:

During a morning set aside for professional development, the art teacher demonstrated how regular classroom teachers could incorporate art into the environmental curriculum at each grade level. This was an example of professional development that was both dynamic (the teachers were enthusiastic) and relevant - particularly so, because the groundbreaking ceremony for the school's wetlands project would be held that afternoon. 

This is exciting on several levels.

First, educators are beginning to recognize the importance of art instruction, not just for its own merits, but for how it enhances and improves learning in the more "traditional" areas.

For example, research is starting to show that opportunities for music instruction improve student academic achievement in other areas. Even more interesting, by incorporating the arts within traditional instruction, more pathways in the brain are engaged during the learning process. As a result, the subject material is learned more deeply. (It was not an accident that you learned your "ABCs" to music.)

This is also a good example of service- and project-based learning. Students will be actively involved in both the creation and the study of the wetlands. By having their learning placed within the context of "meaningful" work, not only are they acquiring important civic skills and community awareness, their learning is enhanced due to their heightened level of engagement.

At the conclusion of the ground-breaking ceremony, an all-school meeting was held that was organized and run - almost entirely - by fifth graders. These meetings, which are held every week, are a vehicle for creating school community, as well as an excellent opportunity for the fifth-graders to learn and exercise leadership skills.

These all-school meetings also a key part of a school climate that encourages and values input from all its "citizens". (Several years ago, dissatisfaction with how the lunchroom was run was resolved by soliciting input from everyone in the school community. Representatives from each grade level continue to meet with the principal regularly in order to monitor progress.)

School "climate"

I went a bit out of my way to attend the panel discussion on school climate at the Federal Relations Network conference in Washington, but it was encouraging to see “climate” become a component of the national legislative agenda. For me, this was additional evidence that a national education consensus is emerging.

Broadly speaking, “school climate” refers to “the character and quality of school life”; that is, the educational environment that encourages – or inhibits – learning in school. It is as important, and should be given as much attention, as a farmer gives to the quality of his soil.

However, the national data on school climate should concern us:

• Less that 50% of students believe their teachers care about them as individuals.
• Less that 50% feel that they have a teacher who they can talk to if they have a problem.
• 2 out of 3 students believe that students do not respect one another.
• 20% of students feel that they are never recognized for their accomplishments.
• As students move from middle to high school, all of these problems get worse.

As explained by Jonathan Cohen of the Center for Social and Emotional Education, how a school is “experienced” by students and teachers is typically a function of:

• the norms, goals, values of the school  (What is acceptable? What are the expectations?)
• the quality of interpersonal relationships (student/student, student/teacher, teacher/teacher)
• teaching and learning practices
• the school’s leadership and organizational structure

One obvious aspect of school climate is safety - physical safety, in particular - but less obvious is social-emotional security: the extent to which students feel safe to take risks in class. (Nearly 1/3 of students feel too intimidated to raise their hand to ask a question.)

Other ways to recognize a positive school environment:

• students – and teachers - are engaged and respected;
• students, families and educators are working towards shared, and jointly developed, goals;
• nearly everyone is contributing to the school and the care of the physical environment.

Although most educators recognize the importance of school climate, it is not consistently measured with statistically reliable tools, and those results are not being used to improve the environment in a deliberate and intentional way.

The "Junk Food" Dilemma

Senator Tom Harkin, the keynote speaker at last month’s FRN conference, has long been an advocate for public education, particularly in his support for "full-funding" of IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act). So it was not a surprise that the delegates at the convention received him enthusiastically.

But the room got quiet when he began to talk about federal nutrition standards for all food sold in school – including vending machines, which is a source of income for many school districts.

A similar dynamic occurred several years ago when former President Bill Clinton addressed the National School Board Association’s annual conference. Instead of providing the delegates with the “give-the-administration-hell” speech they expected, he spent most of his time talking about childhood obesity, and what role school boards might have in addressing the issue. He received polite applause.

Part of Harkin’s proposal is a significant expansion of a program he initiated some years ago, which gives school children exposure to locally-grown and creatively-prepared fresh fruit and vegetables. State College is one of a relative handful of schools nationwide that has had an opportunity to participate – to rave reviews, particularly from the students.

The principle behind school board resistance to federal nutrition standards – which Harkin acknowledged – is “local control”. In short, local boards don’t like being told what to do by the federal government.

It should be noted, as Harkin did, that this principle has merit. A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach (NCLB, for example) often results in bad policy because it ignores the experience and insight of the people who are the closest to the issue, as well as the fact that every school is different. Local school boards are more likely to understand and are in better position to respond to the concerns of the community.

But I think it is possible to take even a good principle too far. To my knowledge, “local control” is not carved in stone, and shouldn’t be. The deeper principal: what is in the best interest of our students?

It could be argued that schools should be a safe haven from exposure to “junk”, hi-fat, hi-sugar foods. It is certainly true that the quality of food that children eat has an effect on their ability to learn. So perhaps federal legislation is needed to remove from school boards the temptation to balance their food service budgets with the sale of potato chips.

I think it’s at least worth a discussion, which is why I was one of the few who applauded.

Petitioning the government

Tuesday, Mar 3, 2009

I spent the first weekend of February – only ten days after the inauguration and just as negotiations were beginning over the economic stimulus package - at the Federal Relations Network (FRN) conference in Washington, D.C.. It was an extraordinary time to be in the capitol.

The FRN is the branch of the National School Boards Association that is responsible for influencing federal education policy. Having school board members from across the country speaking with nearly every legislator, on the same day, is a good way to have an impact.

School board members make unusual ‘lobbyists’ in that they don’t typically speak as partisans or on their own behalf. Because they are seldom endorsed by political parties when they run for office, they are not beholden to a particular political perspective.

For example, school board members are not necessarily aligned with the teacher unions, with whom they have to negotiate every few years. Rather, they represent the entire education community, students in particular.

It’s essential that our representatives in Harrisburg and Washington hear from constituents who are not only well-informed, but who also understand the impact that state and federal policy has at the level of the local school. It doesn’t hurt that we share with them the perspective and experience of being an elected official. Considering the overwhelming spectrum of issues about which our representatives need to be knowledgeable, I don’t think you can overstate the value of providing them with an opportunity to hear a perspective that is relatively unbiased.

I’m of the opinion that while school board members are primarily accountable to their local communities, we are also citizens – as is everyone - of the broader community, and therefore we have a responsibility to be engaged at the state and national level. It’s part of how we create an informed national education policy.