Grantee Research Project Results
2016 Progress Report: Balancing Sustainability, Clean Air, Healthy Learning Interiors, and Structural Safety when Designing and Building Schools
EPA Grant Number: R835634Title: Balancing Sustainability, Clean Air, Healthy Learning Interiors, and Structural Safety when Designing and Building Schools
Investigators: Holliday, Lisa M. , Lynch, Robert A. , Johnson, David L , Floyd, Evan , Wachter, Hans-Peter , Wang, Jun , Keesee, Marguerite , Magzamen, Sheryl
Current Investigators: Holliday, Lisa M. , Lynch, Robert A. , Magzamen, Sheryl , Keesee, Marguerite , Wachter, Hans-Peter , Floyd, Evan , Wang, Jun , Johnson, David L
Institution: University of Oklahoma , Colorado State University , University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2018 (Extended to October 31, 2019)
Project Period Covered by this Report: November 1, 2015 through October 31,2016
Project Amount: $984,175
RFA: Healthy Schools: Environmental Factors, Children’s Health and Performance, and Sustainable Building Practices (2013) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Children's Health , Human Health
Objective:
Objective 1: Determine quantitatively how each building feature relates to student and teacher performance and how each feature is inter-related.
Progress Summary:
Progress Summary/Accomplishments – Year 2:
Overall, the Oklahoma Healthy Schools project has completed the majority of its Year 1 and 2 objectives. Major accomplishments include:
-
The development of a partnership with the Oklahoma City and Edmond Public School districts as participants in this project representing approximately 125 schools.
-
OU IRB approval for all Year 2 activities with the most recent submission including the teacher and parent health surveys and indoor air quality monitoring at 12 Elementary schools. We will seek approval from the OUIRB to allow researchers to use census block level Oklahoma Hospital Discharge data to use in analysis with indoor air quality analysis of select schools. We are in the process of completing second year continuation report as well.
-
Work with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) continues with little turnover in the board. At the beginning of the second year, members were given an opportunity to rotate off of the board. However all members but two elected to remain. The two departing members included a school board representative who choose not to continue his work with the board and a representative from the State Department of Education. Both of these positions were successfully filled with other individuals in similar positions. Due to the extensive field work required in Year 2 to collect data, the CAB meeting schedule was modified to quarterly meetings beginning in March of 2016. CAB meeting dates for Year 2 include – March 22, 2016; July 26, 2016; and October 25, 2016. Due to the unavailability of CAB members to attend, meetings are not held in the months of November and December.
-
Field observations and plan reviews using the building assessment tool (B.A.T) formally started in October of 2015, with the last school and plan review completed in August 2016. Overall, 99 were physically assessed and 73 plans were reviewed. As a result of natural disasters and unforeseen destructive events, some of the school architectural plans have been lost and were not available for review.
-
Key informant interviews have been transcribed and coded. Researchers are now in the process of synthesizing these findings into a manuscript. Throughout the year, findings from these interviews have been incorporated in tool development, presentations and project articles.
-
- building assessment survey by parents and school staff has been completed. Unfortunately, the parent and teacher response rate was extremely low with an estimated response rate of 6% (completed surveys 578) for parents and 3.3% (completed surveys 185) for school staff. In order to increase the parent response rate, researchers, conducted follow-up telephone calls and hard copy mail-outs. se efforts were not very productive as the contact information (mailing address and phone numbers) for the largest school district was very problematic with bad mailing address and phone numbers. Both districts elected to send email blasts to teachers which prevented researchers from conducting any follow-up activities to increase the response rate for teachers. school staff response rate is estimated using the total number of staff reported in the district’s annual reports excluding staff not assigned to a school.
-
The IEQ testing has moved along fairly smoothly. Our original plan was to sample 12 schools three times each during different seasons. Within individual schools, we planned to test two classrooms and one outside location. Through September 30, 2016, we will have completed 33 of the 36 planned sampled events. Two of the schools have apparently lost interest in further sampling so we will not be able to gather data from three events from those schools. Outdoor sampling proved problematic due to several factors including: a number of the schools did not have a secure outdoor location to place equipment, inclement weather, and unsafe access to roofs for project staff. When outdoor sampling was not feasible, we sampled an additional classroom. Most data was measured and logged on-site for a 24-hour period. We had a few minor equipment glitches and a few occasions when power to our equipment was switched off. The formaldehyde measurement was unreliable and was discontinued after the first sampling at each school. Endotoxin values were extremely low at all schools so this measurement was also discontinued after the first sampling at each school. We stored the VOC desorption tubes to measure them at one time and analysis of those samples will begin this month.
-
The teacher and parent health surveys were initially received with much enthusiasm – especially due to the promise of a gift card. Questionnaires were distributed to the parents via the teachers and students according to their knowledge of the language used at home (Spanish or English). A self-addressed stamped envelope was included. Teachers were given a similar health survey, also with a self-addressed stamped envelope. Response rates were disappointing – 9.4% for students and 36.4% for teachers. Given the low-response rate, the survey was only attempted once.
Future Activities:
Key activities for Year 3 include:
-
Analysis of key informant interviews completed and results submitted for publication.
-
Analysis of building data to identify significant gains or declines in test score data due to school building renovations and/or new builds.
-
Complete air quality tests in schools, analyze data and submit for conferences and/or publications.
-
Work with CAB to develop tool(s) for use by planners and administrators.
Journal Articles on this Report : 3 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 17 publications | 3 publications in selected types | All 3 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Wachter H-P, Holiday L, Hoehn C, Walter R. Building safe and healthy schools. Educational Facility Planner 2015;48(2&3):47-51. |
R835634 (2015) R835634 (2016) R835634 (2017) |
Exit |
|
Wachter H-P, Hoehn C. Building next-generation schools. American Association of School Administrators: School Administrator 2015;72(10). |
R835634 (2016) R835634 (2017) |
not available |
|
Wachter H-P, Keesee MS, Holliday L. Evaluating school building user needs. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture Research 2016;3(10):1718-1728. |
R835634 (2016) R835634 (2017) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
Community Advisory Board, air quality monitoring, key Informant, building features, field building assessment tool, renovations, new buildsRelevant Websites:
OK Healthy Schools Report Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.