Raising Test Scores by Lowering Temperatures in the Classroom

The Following post was forwarded to me by one of my former students in the Graduate Program at MSU.  The major takeaway from the article, "A number of studies have borne out the link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement," is a point that I continually stress as the "Value Add" custodial maintenance brings to the district by providing classrooms that are conducive to learning.  Addressing facility needs is the next step in taking a holistic approach to maintaining positive facilities that are clean, safe, efficient and conducive to learning.

Providing airconditiong through renovation upgrades or design build not only improves the indoor air quality, it allows for a quality atmosphere to delivery quality instruction!  This commitment to our district in the City of Summit has provided such a setting in our five elementary schools where temperatures reached over 90 degrees in many classrooms during the months of May, June and September each year.  Better yet, taking advantage of state facility grants (RODS) the board of education was able to manage these needed upgrades at .60 cents on the dollar, with 40% of the total covered by the state, as part of a comprehensive mechanical upgrade project at each school involving new boilers, univents, exhaust fans and air conditioning.  In addition we focused on gaining energy efficiency through a comprehensive district wide window and door project also funded in large part through state facilities grants.  The obvious pay off will be in lower energy bills meaning more dollars for the classroom; however, given the fact we are in the business of education... the ultimate return on investment will be enhance student performance.

Posted at 04:00 AM ET, 09/12/2012TheWashingtonPost

Why shouldn’t Chicago teachers ask for air- conditioned schools?

By Valerie Strauss

One of the seemingly smaller issues that striking Chicago teachers are asking for is air-conditioning in schools where there isn’t any.  One can almost hear folks in St. Louis or Birmingham or Miami, Chicago parents drop their children off to spend the morning — without teachers — at Benjamin E. Mays Academy during the strike. ((M. Spencer Green/AP)) saying: “It’s hotter here. What’s their problem in Chicago?”

Indeed, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who is battling the Chicago Teachers Union, said the other day: “It’s 71 degrees outside. We don’t go on strike for air conditioning.” (He apparently forgot that some classes had to be cancelled because of a deadly heat wave this past summer, but never mind.)
The real issue here, of course, isn’t the temperature in Chicago. It is this: Why shouldn’t the climate in American public school buildings be conducive to teaching and learning? This isn’t just a perk for greedy teachers; environment affects students.

If you have ever tried to concentrate when it is stifling hot, you can imagine what happens in many schoolrooms. A number of studies have borne out the link between the quality of school facilities and student achievement.

That means most schools (except in places with consistently moderate weather) should have working air conditioning and/or heating systems, windows that open, air that doesn’t reek from pesticides or old carpets or anything else, and doors so that one class doesn’t have to hear another. No lead paint. No asbestos.

In Chicago, many of the schools are crumbling, quite literally, and wouldn’t you know it — they are among the lowest performing. A 2011 study of the facilities found that 92 Chicago Public School buildings, with a total of 44,100 students, need an average of $137 per square foot — a total of $750 million — to bring them into good repair. All but 15 percent of students in those schools come from low-income families.
There are those, of course, who will say this: “Kids learn in difficult conditions in other countries. Why can’t American kids?”
Setting aside the issue of how other students really learn, the answer is: Why should they have to?