Search

The general science of infection prevention and control can be applied to and adapted for a variety of settings, including kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12). Strategies can be implemented in the classroom and whole school environment to prevent a wide array of illnesses caused by both bacteria and viruses. This science brief presents findings from a review of research studies focused on school- based strategies to prevent and control respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. The studies reviewed in this brief informed and supported development of the Guidance for Preventing Spread of Infections in K-12 Schools. Previous literature reviews have been published about infection prevention in schools, and most have focused on single intervention strategies such as hand washing, cleaning and disinfection, or contact tracing. Additionally, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has evidence-based guidance, including the respiratory virus guidance that was taken into consideration when developing this brief. This science brief adds to existing literature by describing the current state of science for a comprehensive set of strategies to prevent spread of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in K-12 settings.

School buildings across America are crumbling. According to a 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 54 percent of U.S. school districts need to update or completely replace multiple building systems in their schools. As a result of decades of underfunding school infrastructure, national spending for K-12 school buildings falls short by an estimated $85 billion annually, as reported by a 2021 analysis from the 21st Century School Fund. Over the next decade, it would cost an estimated $1.1 trillion to modernize and replace obsolete school buildings and systems. Public schools receive most of their funding from local and state government sources. Yet since public schools in communities with fewer resources generate less funding from local property taxes--the primary source of local education funding--they must rely on state and limited local funding to cover operational and capital infrastructure expenditures to upgrade school facilities. For this reason, low-income and historically under-resourced communities, which often primarily serve students of color, are left with inadequate resources to repair and modernize school buildings. The need to initiate long-term federal school infrastructure funding is therefore not only about upgrading school buildings but also addressing the long-standing, ongoing need for racial justice, environmental justice, and educational equity. This report will explore how new and expanded federal funding for school infrastructure would meaningfully benefit both students' physical health and academic success.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the United States in March 2020, districts across the nation have faced the difficult task of reopening schools safely and keeping them open. It is useful to learn from the successes of districts that have used multilayered mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of in-school transmission. This brief describes reopening efforts in San Diego County, CA, where 98% of districts had reopened for in-person learning as of May 2021. The San Diego County Office of Education has mobilized technical assistance, leveraged partnerships, and gathered data to support districts as they have navigated initial school closure, distance learning, and planning for reopening. The brief also describes how the county supported the reopening of child care programs and highlights the reopening strategies adopted by Cajon Valley Union School District, the largest district in the county to resume in-person learning in fall 2020. It is part of a series of reopening profiles produced by the Learning Policy Institute to disseminate key public health research and reopening strategies to educators and policymakers.

The goal of safely and sustainably reopening K-12 school buildings for in-person learning is widely recognized as critical to minimizing the impact of academic, social, emotional, and mental strains brought forth by the COVID-19 pandemic. In order for in-person learning to succeed on an ongoing basis, schools must be able to offer safe environments, taking into account high levels of community spread of COVID-19. Health and safety are foundational for learning and educating. Scientific research and case studies have shown that robust, school-based infection prevention and control (IPC) programs are essential to establishing this solid foundation. Infection prevention and control consists of a set of practices to reduce the risk of disease transmission and achieve healthy and safe workplaces. By providing layered protection strategies, IPC programs can reduce transmission to at or near zero levels, even where there is high community spread. With the knowledge of "what" to do now clearly articulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and scientific experts, implementing this function effectively for K-12 schools now requires focusing on "who" should do the work of infection prevention and control and "how" it should get done. This Roadmap provides general guidance on these questions, with a focus on building organizational capacity. The Roadmap is structured with the twin understandings that state and local governmental structures and labor-management collaboration take many forms and can differ between and within states, and that, to be effective, IPC initiatives must be shaped to align with those contexts. [This report was co-produced by COVID Collaborative, Harvard's Safra Center for Ethics, and Brown School of Public Health. Support for this publication was provided by Rios Partners.]

Climate change and the pandemic have brought new attention to the dire conditions of the nation's schools and schools' lack of preparedness for both, especially to the terrible state of ventilation and indoor air quality. There are renewed calls at all levels for clean air and water, better ventilation and sanitation, and improved oversight of the nation's K-12 schools. Also laid bare is the inequitable impact of the COVID and climate disasters: Black, Latinx, and Native American children are suffering disproportionately because the poorest schools are already in the worst condition and have the fewest resources to adapt or to recover. In January 2021, Healthy Schools Network hosted "COVID, Climate, Children, and Schools," a facilitated national summit. Over two afternoons, more than 120 individuals heard from experts and considered new strategies and actions on the twin crises of COVID-19 and climate mitigation and resiliency in schools and the disproportional impacts on Black, Indigenous, and Latinx children. As the summit revealed, the two crises are intimately linked, especially as they impact the most vulnerable. Participants came from 25 states plus Washington, DC; they included representatives of federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Education, and 65 other organizations. [Additional sponsors of the summit include: New Jersey Education Association, Perkins Eastman, Perkins & Will, and Green Seal.]

Pupil transportation is a vital component of the education system. There are many facets and hurdles that must be addressed in order to provide the safest transportation possible. In some cases, it may seem almost impossible to transport students during the COVID-19 pandemic but implementing some changes at the district and school level may allow for transportation. This report discusses the following plans for pupil transportation in the state of Kentucky during COVID-19: (1) Pupil Transportation; (2) Mitigation Strategies; and (3) Employee Safety Considerations. Additional resources, a sample survey, a sample employee health assessment form, and a school bus seating chart are included.

This Statistics in Brief summarizes the changes from the 1998-99 to the 2012-13 school years in the average age of public schools, ratings of satisfaction of the environmental quality of school facilities, the cost to put school buildings in good overall condition, and short-range plans to improve school facilities. In addition to providing results for all schools, selected comparisons are made within 2012-13 by school level (elementary, secondary, and combined) and school size (less than 300, 300-599, and 600 or more students). This Statistics in Brief uses data from two surveys on the condition of public school facilities conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through its Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). The first survey on this topic was conducted in the 1998-99 school year, and the second was conducted during the 2012-13 school year. Although the surveys sampled individual schools, the questionnaires were mailed to the districts with which the schools were associated, with a separate questionnaire enclosed for each school included in the sample. The following questions were asked: (1) How did the average functional age of schools' main instructional buildings change?; (2) How did dissatisfaction with schools' environmental factors change?; (3) Was there a difference in the percentages of schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put onsite buildings in good overall condition, and what was the estimated cost of these projects, in total and per school?; and (4) Was there a difference in the percentages of schools with plans for building improvements in the next 2 years? The survey was designed to be completed by district-level personnel familiar with the school facilities in the district, often a district facilities coordinator (although the title of the position varied). The differences reported in this brief are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level to ensure that they are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Key findings include: (1) In the 2012-13 school year, the average functional age of schools' main instructional buildings was 19 years, which was older than the average functional age of 16 years in the 1998-99 school year; (2) Of all the environmental factors in schools, lighting was the factor that the highest percentage of public schools rated as unsatisfactory in 2012-13 and the only factor rated as unsatisfactory for a higher percentage of public schools in 2012-13 than in the 1998-99 school year. Interestingly, lighting was the factor least rated as unsatisfactory in 1998-99; (3) In the 2012-13 school year, the percentage of public schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put onsite buildings in good overall condition was 23 percentage points less than in 1998-99. However, the average cost of these projects was estimated to be $1.4 million more per school, adjusted for inflation, in 2012-13 than in 1998-99; and (4) A lower percentage of public schools in the 2012-13 school year than in the 1998-99 school year had plans for building improvements in the next 2 years. However, approximately 39 percent of public schools in the 2012-13 school year had plans for major repairs, renovations, or replacements to at least one building feature in the next 2 years. The following are appended: (1) Data Tables; and (2) Standard Error Tables.

This report provides the survey questions and weighted responses from a July 2021 survey of parents concerning school hesitancy and preferences for COVID-19 safety practices in schools in the United States. The results are intended to inform school districts' and health officials' planning for operating schools in fall 2021. [For the survey methods appendix, see ED615860.]

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for safe school facilities that protect the health of children and staff. With the first day of school just weeks away, most K-12 schools are likely to rely on distance learning for the start of the academic year. When schools do reopen, adhering to current guidelines on physical distancing, cleaning, and hygiene will require schools to use and operate facilities differently--an added pressure considering many schools were in need of important facilities improvements before the pandemic. In this report, the authors provide the first statewide evidence on the conditions of K-12 school facilities, based on data collected prior to the outbreak. The authors find: (1) Statewide, 38 percent of students go to schools that do not meet the minimum facility standards; (2) Between 2015-16 and 2018-19, 108 schools in 60 districts had to close temporarily due to poor facility conditions; (3) Facility needs go beyond basic building functionality; and (4) COVID-19 has brought additional challenges. Accurate accounting of school facility conditions is essential to reopening schools in a safe and effective manner. Unfortunately, existing data on facility conditions are limited and likely understate schools' needs. The authors recommend that the state begin collecting data to assess building capacity and needs, disaster preparedness, accessibility accommodations, and energy efficiency. [For the technical appendices, see ED607959.]

State and local officials who shuttered school buildings to stem the spread of COVID-19 in early 2020 are beginning to plan for the return of students and staff. They will need evidence-based strategies to know how best to create and maintain safe, healthy spaces. To inform their plans, federal health officials have provided guidance on cleaning and disinfection of facilities, appropriate chemicals to use for disinfection, and protocols for countering ongoing virus threats. To help schools clean and disinfect and to assist in counseling and distance learning and associated costs, Congress appropriated $100 million in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence), a program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. These funds are authorized for dissemination through September 30, 2021. Districts and schools will want to prepare their facilities to be safe, healthy places to which students can return. State officials can support districts as they develop plans for closure, cleaning, and reopening of school facilities, both now and in future crises. States should ensure that districts with less capacity to manage operations, less knowledge of strategies to limit infectious disease, or without detailed closure and reopening plans are not disadvantaged at a time when all schools need guidance to ensure the safety of all individuals that come in contact with the school building.

Public education is one of the central tasks of a democratic society, and the buildings that house this important task not only shape the way one teaches, but provide icons and symbols for the values people hold common as a society. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this context has placed school buildings squarely in a position of debate and innovation since the nation began, and school buildings continue to be the subject of careful study and debate today. Schools are influenced by political and social movements, new technologies and trends, the growing awareness of what makes one learn better and thus the notions of what makes a great school are constantly shifting and adapting to new ideas. This paper provides a brief history of the past century and a half of school design, focusing particularly on the systems that made schools livable and conducive to learning: lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and acoustics. (Contains 14 figures.)

Doors serve a variety of needs and purposes in schools: (1) Exterior doors provide building security and protection from the elements; and (2) Interior doors control the movement of people among school spaces, help control noise and air flow, and act as flame and smoke barriers during a fire. In a lockdown, they serve as safety barriers. From a security perspective, the most important function of a door is to control entry. Entry control involves the configuration, strength, durability, and composition of the door, its hinges and its frame, and the control and effectiveness of its latching and locking hardware. This paper explains the building and fire code requirements governing doors in schools, discusses existing door locking options, and describes the varied and sometimes conflicting safety- and security-related functions of school doors. It also includes the California Department of Education's recommendations for school entrances, doors, and access control. (Contains 8 endnotes.)

This paper discusses a variety of school safety and security measures that may be implemented at little or no cost and without the use of complex technology. Measures are presented according to these categories: (1) General; (2) Outside the Building; and (3) Inside the Building.

The Department of Education has undertaken an ambitious effort to develop statewide career and technical education skill standards. The standards in this document are for Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVAC&R) programs and are designed to clearly state what the student should know and be able to do upon completion of an advanced high-school program. The writing team determined that any statewide skill standards for programs that teach HVAC&R should be patterned as closely as possible to existing, national standards. The standards are also closely aligned and sequenced with postsecondary HVAC&R programs. These exit-level standards are designed for students completing an advanced program. Students at the appropriate level of instruction will be expected to demonstrate competence for all performance indicators in the "meets standard" domains for each performance standard. The standards as follows: (1) Content Standards; (2) Performance Standards; and (3) Performance Indicators.

The attrition of both new and experienced teachers is a great challenge for schools and school administrators throughout the United States, particularly in large urban districts. Because of the importance of this issue, there is a large empirical literature that investigates why teachers quit and how they might be better induced to stay. Here we build upon this literature by suggesting another important factor: the quality of school facilities. We investigate the importance of facility quality using data from a survey of K-12 teachers in Washington, D.C. We find in our sample that facility quality is an important predictor of the decision of teachers to leave their current position. (Contains 2 tables, 2 figures and 6 endnotes.)

This article highlights indoor air quality and exposure to pollutants at school. Typical air pollutants within schools include environmental tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, allergens, pathogens, radon, pesticides, lead, and dust. Inadequate ventilation, inefficient filtration, and poor hygiene of air handling units are the main reasons for poor indoor air quality. The article discusses the scope of inadequate ventilation to emphasize inadequacies in the present framework of codes and practices, examining a case study done as part of a product demonstration in the Exhibit Hall of the Austin Convention Center during the 2002 USGBC conference. Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring was performed in accordance with sampling guidelines from ASTM D6245, Standard Guide for Using Indoor Carbon Dioxide Concentrations to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation. The CO2 monitoring values indicated that in the morning, the amount of ventilation provided to occupants was only about half of the recommended minimum. This inadequacy was communicated to operators of the building's HVAC system, who increased the opening of the outdoor air dampers to provide more ventilation to the Exhibit Hall. This resulted in significant increases in the ventilation rate at the breathing zone. Overnight monitoring data revealed that the Exhibit Hall's ventilation system failed to flush the space out before occupancy the next day. (SM)

This review explores which facility attributes affect academic outcomes the most and in what manner and degree. The research is examined in six categories: indoor air quality, ventilation, and thermal comfort; lighting; acoustics; building age and quality; school size; and class size. The review concludes that school facilities affect learning. Spatial configurations, noise, heat, cold, light, and air quality obviously bear on students' and teachers' ability to perform. Needed are clean air, good light, and a quiet, comfortable, and safe learning environment. The review asserts that this can be and generally has been achieved within the limits of existing knowledge, technology, and materials; it simply requires adequate funding and competent design, construction, and maintenance. (Contains 134 references.) (EV)

This paper describes how to protect and enhance indoor environmental quality without sacrificing energy performance, lists the common pollutants and their sources, and explores how energy efficiency projects affect indoor environmental quality. Also highlighted are study figures showing the energy costs of outdoor air ventilation and an explanation of energy recovery ventilation technology that can help lessen these costs. An annotated list of areas where adjustments in energy-efficiency measures may be needed is provided. Two resources for additional information are provided. (GR)

This paper presents air quality and ventilation data from an existing chemical laboratory facility and discusses the work practice changes implemented in response to deficiencies in ventilation. General methods for improving air quality in existing laboratories are presented and investigation techniques for characterizing air quality are described. The paper also reviews major design considerations for good indoor air quality in new laboratories; two recently designed projects are used as examples. The program document, used by architects and engineers to design a building according to the requirements of the facility's users, is explained as it relates to indoor air quality. Further discussed is how the program information is translated into design strategies and equipment selection for good indoor air quality. The paper concludes with a summary of conditions which often contribute to poor air quality in laboratories and suggestions for addressing these situations. (GR)

Research show that one in five U.S. schools has indoor air quality (IAQ) problems; 36 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and there appears to be a correlation between IAQs and the proportion of a school's students coming from low-income households. This report examines the IAQ issue in U.S. public schools and discusses: the IAQ investigations conducted in school facilities; the factors that determine microorganism growth in HVAC systems and production of volatile emissions; humidity control and the impact on IAQ, volatile organic compounds and other chemical compounds that affect IAQ; the control of indoor environments with HVAC systems; and the impact of IAQ on productivity and satisfaction in the learning environment. The research indicates that proper outdoor air ventilation and humidity control are necessary but that too often, in practice, one is obtained at the expense of the other. Additionally, research indicates that IAQ problems in school facilities are preventable by: providing adequate outdoor air ventilation on a continuous basis (15 cfm per student); controlling the space relative humidity between 30 and 60 percent; and providing effective particulate filtration of the outdoor air. (Contains 104 references). (GR)

This report presents detailed results from a survey and critical review of existing published literature and reports on indoor air quality (IAQ), ventilation, and IAQ- and building-related health problems in schools, particularly California schools. The findings: (1) identify the most commonly reported building-related health symtoms involving schools; (2) assemble, evaluate, and summarize existing measurement data on key indoor air pollutants most likely to be related to these symptoms; e.g., carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and bioaerosols; (3) assemble and summarize existing measurements of ventilation rates in schools; and (4) summarize information on causes of indoor air quality and health symptom problems in schools. Appendices contain data tables. (Contains 193 references.) (EV)

Asserting that toxic chemicals can be found throughout school grounds in pesticides, building materials, school supplies, cleaning products, office equipment, and personal care products, this reports details the prevalence of toxic chemicals within schools and recommends methods for reducing exposure. Following an executive summary, the report address indoor air quality in U.S. schools, sources of toxic chemical pollution, Vermont case studies, and state-level and individual school recommendations. (Contains 35 references.) (EV)