The Roosevelt Institution

Op-Ed: Green schools for better education

Op-Ed: Green schools for better education

All parents want their children to be healthy and do well in school. Elementary schools are places of learning where impressions and ideas that last a lifetime are formed. But existing schools are often built on tight budgets and to the bare-minimum standard necessary to meet building codes. Building codes, however, are rarely designed to enhance the learning environment for children. A new approach toward building schools is needed.

A recent study by Greg Kats of Capital E definitively shows that schools could be “healthier, more comfortable, and more productive” by using well-known green building techniques for an initial cost premium of under 2%, but with cost savings of twenty times the cost of going green over the lifetime of the school. Building green means designing a building so that it is constructed in an environmentally sensible way, with environmental criteria as one of the foremost, if not the top, priority when making design decisions. Green buildings considerably reduce water and energy consumption, and are healthier for their occupants.

With such exciting numbers and benefits, why aren’t all elementary schools built to green standards? A 2005 survey by Turner Construction Company shows that the three strongest reasons discouraging executives from building green are 1) higher construction costs, 2) lack of awareness of benefits, and 3) difficulty of quantifying benefits. So what exactly are the costs and benefits of going green, and why are the benefits difficult to quantify?

Examining 30 green schools built in the last five years provides answers to all three of our questions. Average national school construction cost is $150/ft2, and the typical cost of greening was an additional $3/ft2, or an additional 2%. Over time, green schools use 30% less energy and water than conventional schools. These changes save water and reduce carbon emissions, and result in direct savings of $11/ft2 during the life of the school, which is almost four times the cost of greening. Despite these direct long-term savings, schools on tight budgets perceive green as more expensive because of the 2% higher upfront cost. However, the evidence shows that greening our elementary schools makes long-term financial sense.

Green schools also offer numerous compelling health benefits for our children. Many existing schools have poor air quality and poor environmental quality that detract from learning. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, over one quarter, or 15 million, of all students attend schools with below standard or dangerous air quality. Poor air quality leads to health ailments that include elevated cases of asthma, colds, and the flu. Poor environmental quality leads to slower learning, lower test scores, and a lack of motivation for both students and teachers. Both factors combine to retard children’s learning and academic progress, negatively affecting their future productivity and earning potential. Green schools address these hidden social costs through design targeted to help children learn.

Clearly, the adverse costs of the existing building standard for schools are difficult to quantify because they are social costs. However, a recent compilation of studies on many of these social costs roughly quantifies the benefit that green schools have. The social cost savings of greening schools break down as follows: increased earnings ($49/ft2), asthma reduction ($3/ft2), cold and flu reduction ($5/ft2), teacher retention ($4/ft2), and employment impact ($2/ft2). Additional benefits such as reduced climate change impact, reduced construction and demolition waste, reduced insurance and risk management, reduced teacher sick days, and reduced operation and maintenance costs are not even included in this financial analysis. Addressing social cost by greening schools offers a large indirect financial benefit, in addition to addressing failures of existing schools.

California needs to implement a statewide commitment to build only green schools and retrofit existing schools to green standards. Leadership on the state level will dispel misperceptions about cost and benefits. A state loan program can provide school departments with the necessary financial backing to overcome the 2% average higher initial cost, which can be paid back with a fraction of the total water and energy savings. Adopting the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Gold program will ensure that all schools are built to green standards, which address the air quality and environmental quality issues that afflict our existing schools. These fairly simple steps are an often overlooked approach to improving education and making California students more competitive on the national level.

And best of all, our children will benefit. They will spend a significant part of their childhoods in healthy, state-of-the-art schools which will foster overall learning. They will also gain an understanding of the importance of green design and human impact on global climate change, so that it will be second nature to them as adults when they will need an in-depth understanding of these concepts. A more educated and better informed society is an unquantifiable, but surely very important, benefit. Children will also perform better in school, achieve higher test scores, and have greater job opportunities as adults. We have the technology and knowledge to provide our students with a better education. Let’s give our children a fair chance and build green.

Jonas Ketterle is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering. He is the student representative and a teaching assistant for the Green Dorm Project, the director of the Roosevelt Institution Center on the Environment and Energy, and one of the lead organizers for Energy Crossroads.