WASHINGTON – Barack Obama probably cannot fix every leaky roof and busted boiler in the nation's schools. But educators say his sweeping school modernization program — if he spends enough — could jump-start student achievement.
That is the lead paragraph of this AP story
The condition of schools is an issue about which I have written before, most notably in a diary entitled Raw sewage, mold, and mice droppings posted 25 months ago. I also wrote about the topic in this comment on A Siegel's diary yesterday about the stimulus
Let's explore the AP story just a bit.
The article says that increasing numbers of students are in
aging, run-down schools that need an estimated $255 billion in repairs, renovations or construction.
Obviously Obama will not ask for that much for schools, and there is a possible problem, as educators
warn that Obama's school spending plan won't stimulate the economy if it requires matching funds from state and local governments whose tax revenues have been slashed by the recession.
Critics do point out the federal spending by itself does not necessarily result in increases in student learning (presumably as measured by the omnipresent tests), citing the billions spent on the Federal E-rate as an example.
And yet, and yet.
Studies in Houston, New York City and North Dakota have made a link between classroom conditions and performance; in the New York study, researchers found kids in crowded classrooms scored lower in math and reading.
In the diary I cited above the fold I noted a teacher who complained it was hard to teach while it was raining in the classroom. The AP article offers similar anecdotal material that reinforces the contention of almost half of public school principals who claim the deteriorating conditions are interfering with learning:
Judi Caddick, a middle school math teacher in blue-collar Lansing, Ill., just south of Chicago, said in the older part of her World War II-era school, classrooms had just two power outlets, forcing teachers to string multiple extension cords into the rafters or to unplug a TV power point presentation in order to plug a computer in for a child.
"It looked like a spaghetti bowl," Caddick said.
Special education classrooms flooded when plumbing backed up, leaving an unmistakable smell on hot days, not to mention allergy and asthma problems, despite efforts to clean the carpet, she said. And hallways were so dark and crowded, teachers often couldn't see shoving and bumping in time to stop fights.
It is also a health issue:
Upgrades can also make kids healthier; measures to prevent mold can decrease asthma, which is the No. 1 chronic illness making kids miss school.
I want to revisit what I wrote about asthma in that previous dairy, written to inform people about a study being released from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, the smaller of the two teachers' unions; I am a member of the National Education Association, NEA, which agrees on this issue). Please note the following:
- poor air quality in school buildings contributes to student asthma, which leads to absences, difficulties concentrating, and lower achievement.
- the American Lung Association found that in 2000 there were more than 12 million days of absence caused by asthma aggravated by poor indoor air quality.
- nearly one in 13 school age children has asthma, the percentage rapidly rising among preschool children.
- among children 5-17 asthma is the leading cause of absence due to a chronic illness, averaging about 8 days for each child with asthma.
- the death rate for asthma among children 5-14 doubled from 1980 to 1988, with African-American children 4 to 6 times more likely to die from asthma related problems.
Let me step back a moment. First, no one really knows how much would be the actual cost to bring all schools up code. In my 2006 diary, I quoted from a GAO report which noted that
in 1995 the GAO reported 25,000 school buildings needed extensive repairs and replacements then costing $112 billion to bring the buildings into conformity with MINIMUM building standards
and also cited a 1999 federal report that indicated
3/4 of schools needed funds for repairs, etc., to upgrade their overall condition to good
And in that AFT report, issued just over two years ago, the AFT argued that
Although NCLB establishes high-stakes consequences for staff and students, many of the schools not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, teacher retention incentives, and the financial and professional supports necessary to succeed. A learning environmental index would identify and measure teaching and learning conditions that are known to contribute to the increased student achievement. Schools that fail to make AYP would be required to show improvement on their learning environment index, and states and districts would be required to provide the resources to ensure that schools address the teaching and learning conditions identified for improvement. This would be the first step to shared responsibility for student learning.
There are other figures offered in the AP story about which I am writing today. The AFT says
schools need about $255 billion in maintenance, new construction, renovation and retrofitting for computer technology
while the NEA, in an earlier report, suggested costs as much as $360 billion. The only figure offered by Obama so far is about $25 billion, which would barely make a dent in the unfunded needs.
States are in no position to provide matching funds at this point. In my own state, Virginia, Gov. Kaine has announced significant cutbacks in state aid for schools, including cutting $83 million from planned expenditures on school construction, and $340 million for non classroom staff, including social workers and school nurses. While Kaine is proposing to limit total cuts to no more tan $400/student in a district, in some rural districts, that represents almost 5% of their total expenditures. It is not clear how Virginia could come up with matching funds for stimulus expenditures on schools.
The story says that the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in the House will take up the stimulus package beginning Wednesday, with George Miller of CA, chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a close ally of Speaker Pelosi, promising school modernization as a part of the stimulus. It then concludes with this paragraph:
Obama aides working on the stimulus package say they want projects that can start immediately, putting people back to work. A study by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that spending $20 billion on deferred maintenance in school districts across the country would create nearly 250,000 skilled maintenance jobs.
Jobs are important. But so are the health, safety, and learning of our children. If we are unwilling to invest sufficient funds to provide proper learning environments, how in heaven can we complain when children do not do as well as we might like? If students are constantly missing school because of health reasons that can be tied at least in part to the conditions to which they are subjected in school, then all of our best teaching will be far less effective than it could be.
A Siegel pointed out in responding to my commment on his diary that this would be an opportunity to begin Green (re)construction efforts. I agree. If thought through properly we could start creating the skilled workforce that can apply such green construction methods to other public buildings, to commercial sites, even to residential sites. That would also create jobs, as well as reducing expenditures for energy.
But it is even more basic. Our students know that we do not REALLY value their education when we require them to attend in facilities that were they not owned by local governments would be shut down as not being up to code: you could not operate a restaurant or a store or an office with as many violations as are allowed in our school buildings. And the problem is very bad in precisely those aging inner city schools where we proclaim that we want to make a difference so that "No Child" is left behind. Poppycock! If we actually believed it, we would not allow students to attend in buildings so substandard as many students experience on those days they do show up.
My personal concerns about education are manifold. I want to change our entire approach to how we instruct, in how we design our curriculum, in how we assess. All of these are important. Yet no matter how much thought, energy and money we put into these efforts, we - and of greater importance, the students - will not realize the benefits we should unless the students experience them in healthy, safe, non-deteriorating classroom and school environments.
Money IS tight. And there are many demands for limited resources. If we care about the future, then we should care about our children. And if we care about our children, we should be caring about the school buildings to which we send them to learn.
Happy New Year.
Peace