Keeping Students Awake ... and More Productive ...

The Washington Post featured a local high school's green renovation in Titans of Ecology, which began

At the brand-new T.C. Williams High in Alexandria, a modern "green" school, students say the environmentally friendly design has led to a serious lifestyle change: They can't doze in class anymore because sunlight pours in from practically every angle.

This points to one of the real benefits of going green, of being environmentally friendly and energy efficient. Yes, there are the direct cost savings in lowered energy use to be gained through going green. At TC Williams the estimate is $100,000 per year in lowered energy costs for T.C. Williams against a total additional cost of $1.2 million for going green (remember, much of that investment was not energy savings related). Okay, about an 8 percent savings per year on the investment. Sounds sort of okay, if not great, right? Stopping there would be a very limited view of the impact of "going green"

What is less often realized is that those energy savings are not even the tip of the iceberg in real benefits, in measurable impact from "going green". Study-after-study of green buildings has found that there is improved worker productivity, reduced absenteeism, and improved retention (reduced turnover) which directly impacts the bottom line (helping companies make green by going Green). In addition, related to these is that workers have fewer health problems -- working in a healthy space turns out to, surprise surprise, contribute to one's health.

But, how to translate this into the school space?

It turns out that there are measures to use ... and by those measures, the benefits of going Green have real meaning. From AIA Architect:

A study in North Carolina revealed that children in schools with more natural day lighting scored 5 percent better on standardized tests than children in normal, comparable buildings.

What is the "value" of that 5 percent test score benefit? How much more would have to be spent on teacher salaries to get that sort of gain? It almost certainly would be far greater than a one-year amortized cost of going Green and increasing natural day lighting.

Thus, the TJ Williams' students likely will not just suffer from not having their daytime naps but also suffer through the problem of having higher test scores (perhaps because they are snoring through fewer classes).

The National Academy of Sciences commissioned a study that indicated that teacher productivity and student learning, as measured by absenteeism, is affected by indoor air quality.

In other words, it isn't just that lighting: the healthier building has a healthy impact on the school environment.

Sadly, the Post article gave voice to shallow-based criticism.

The new three-story T.C. Williams, home to about 2,000 students, cost about $98 million, which is much higher than the price of many regular high schools its size. Alexandria school officials said the facility's green features account for about $1.2 million of its cost. Still, some educators and parents expressed skepticism about the cost of green schools.

John Wilson, a commercial real estate salesman and the father of student J.W. Wilson, said he was surprised that he had not heard much protest about the school's cost. "I am happy that the students have the best of everything," Wilson said, "but I am not convinced that it always translates into a better education."

Well, the "best of everything". Is Wilson focused on and upset about the $98 million? Or, is it the $1.2 million of greening that's got his goat? And well, again that $1.2 million will translate to $100,000 per year in lower energy costs, could reduce other direct costs, (substitute teachers, health care compensation, etc), could lead to improved student health/happiness, and will, almost certainly, translate into improved academic performance of higher value than that $1.2 million each and every year.

All told, for the citizens, that $1.2 million looks like a pretty good investment.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

The instincts that drive our sleep needs and patterns are complex and individual but all are the result of millions of years of evolutionary pressures. It should be no surprise that teenage primates are active late into the night when mating occurs and crave sleep in the daytime when it's hot and dangerous to be out in the open. Secondly, when school takes a child out of the social structure of it's neighborhood it leaves the structural bonds that give it meaning and so it forms others such as gangs and cliques which are not so involved with the sustainability of its local group, so no surprise they guage themselves by other criteria such as risk and physical domination.
My suggestion: if we're going to spend on education, spend the money on keeping it local & small, recognize the human evolutionary instincts regarding sleep pattern, and wire it for maximum exposure to ideas and concepts to create the virtual campus, recognize and help nurture the bright, be realistic for those with little chance for academic achievment by praising the worth and value of trades and labor, and keep sports in proportion and subservient to basic learning.

[Clinton]

This has some good ideas. The notion of academic achievement would also need to be re-examined. There are a lot of students who are so bored and disaffected that they appear less capable than they really are.

[jhNY]

What's an 'iceberg'?

[mommamia526]

It might be better to rethink how children are learning in this electronic age. We do not need large, expensive buildings to warehouse kids for learning purposes. We can do this now at community buildings, right in our neighborhoods, have swimming pools, playgrounds and exercise equipment available to the whole community. College students can decide to get a second major in education, and we can do *expanded homeschooling* with the aid of computerized instruction. It is not even necessary to get that second major. One can simply do the NTE test; it is not difficult, I did it and passed it. We can have teaching specialists who contract out their services, going from site to site. All this would eliminate some pollution too, and costs, from schoolbusing. It would also save commuting time for students. A more free system will help many students, those who need to move around, from time to time, because of physical requirements, or activity levels. On a good day they could sit outside, or walk around outside, studying, or learning with a headphone (plus tape). Plants inside the buildings and at home are excellent green resources, and are very cheap to produce and maintain.

[mommamia526]

I am happy that the U.S. is finding this out. In The Netherlands that had been known for a while. We had one school which was almost all glass and the roof could be raised, sothat fresh air streamed in during nice days. We had other things as well. It was discovered that it is good for kids to get their hands in some dirt, and we had school gardens, away from school, where we grew flowers and veggies. It was always great to bring home bib lettuce and dahlias to mom. We also grew plants at home and had contests who did the best job of it. Now, that said, there is one more important thing which would help keeping kids awake in school. Teaching, I noticed kids fall asleep all over the place, and when I asked them why they were so tired, I learned they had been working late at the pizza hop and the burger shop. My own grandchildren worked their way through high school and College. They are simply dead tired and sleep deprived. We would be better off letting our kids apply all their time and effort to study and socializing with peers during that very short and very productive period in life. The productivity does not lie in the few dollars earned, on the contrary.

[runswithscissors]

That $1.2 million expense looks even cheaper when you consider that a single cruise missile costs about $1.4 million. Fire one less cruise missile a day, and in it's place upgrade an entire school. Seems like a decent trade to me.

[Clinton]

So many things can be done to improve the environment at high school that cost very little money. The 'Green' label will be used to generate a lot of hype. Incorporating the science of 'going green' (already this is a tiresome slogan) into the high school curriculum would be very beneficial. So too would be an education in worker rights vis occupational health and safety issues, since any employer who endangers the health of workers is the proper subject of legal action. High school students need to get more sleep in any event, and they shouldn't be indoctrinated into worrying about their 'productivity', since it is education we are talking about. Not some benighted human resources task.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

See A. Siegel's Profile

Seems like we are in some serious agreement, overall ...

Now, in my mind, "Going Green" (whether in schools, homes, business, government) has tremendous 'win, win, win' values. And, some of that is 'productivity' oriented/related, which is a path to help bringing on board to the required effort people who might otherwise reject this as some 'softy'/feel good activity. What is difficult is keeping the 'slogan' related to substance, rather than greenwashing.

[Clinton]

Yes, this is clearly true. The difficulty involves using the 'green' label solely as a gimmick, (which is nothing you have implied). A lot of the language around the 'ecology' and 'environmental' movements has been hijacked. Deconstructing these terms and relating them to science and history would be tremendously beneficial to students. It would help them to see through a lot of blather in the culture at large and make truly informed decisions. Decisions grounded in verifiable facts.

Hey, it's a great post, by the way.