Posted: 09/09/2008 | Author: H. Sterling Burnett
Green Schools Don’t Make Grade
By H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Originally published by: Washington Examiner
When education is the topic, two issues are constantly at the forefront: Student performance and funding. And every few years some half-baked idea comes along concerning how to improve one or the other that sounds good in theory, but when tested, gets a failing grade. Does anyone remember the new math?
This brings to mind Congress' latest education innovation. The U.S. House recent approved $20 billion to build public schools that meet "green" standards. Without presenting any evidence, green school boosters have testified that such schools use less energy (thus freeing up educational dollars) and improve student health, attendance and performance.
So what's not to like? It turns out, a lot, according to Todd Myers an adjunct scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
In an NCPA paper, Myers examined Washington state's experience with green schools as it has gone the furthest in embracing the call for them. In 2005, the state mandated that new public schools either meet standards based on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design criteria developed by the U.S. Green Building Council or equivalent state requirements. LEED standards rate new buildings in terms of site sustainability, water and energy efficiency (including reduced carbon emissions), and the use of green materials, high-efficiency appliances and fixture, and indoor air quality.
Bill supporters argued that schools would save 30 percent to 50 percent a year in energy costs and would reduce absenteeism 10 percent by improving student health.
Prior to the legislation being enacted, the state allowed several pilot schools in the Olympia, Northshore and Spokane school districts to adopt the LEED standards to test their effectiveness. By the summer of 2007 comparative data with conventional schools recently built in the same districts became available.
The results are clear. In no case was the so-called green school the most energy-efficient in the district. Nor were the energy costs for green schools anywhere near 30 percent less than at comparable schools.
Worse, energy costs at every green school built since the state mandate were at least 25 percent higher than the most-efficient non-green school in the same district.
Nor did green schools reduce absenteeism. At Spokane's three new green schools, the average absence rate per student is slightly higher than the rate for the district as a whole.
And every green school has cost more than projected. The nationwide estimates for the additional, upfront cost of green schools cited by LEED advocates is about 2 percent, yet local officials in Washington state have reported that "green" buildings cost about 6 percent more than nongreen buildings.
With new schools typically costing millions of dollars each, that 6 percent "green" surcharge adds up to a lot of money not going to the classroom, where it would do the most good.
Why have theory and reality have diverged? First, the initial projections were extremely rosy, with green school boosters highlighting the most optimistic estimates to help pass the legislation. Having overpromised, it's not surprising that districts are now underdelivering. The energy savings claims used by Congress are likely to be equally unrealistic.
Second, the standards are one-size-fits-all, often requiring expenditures that do little to achieve energy savings. In Spokane, for instance, additional bike racks were installed to meet a requirement to reduce the number of kids driven to school, but those racks now sit largely unfilled.
Third, the standards often try to achieve contradictory goals. The rules call for increasing the amount of natural light in the belief that more daylight increases test scores. However, even in a relatively temperate state like Washington, larger windows have increased energy costs by letting in the cold in winter and heat in the summer. Similarly, the schools run the heating and air conditioning systems more often to recirculate air to improve air quality. However, this has increased energy use.
Before Congress jumps on the green school bandwagon, spending billions to meet green standards, it should be skeptical of projected energy savings and reductions in student absenteeism.
In Washington state, green schools have higher had than expected costs, and the energy savings and other projected benefits are either small or nonexistent. Can some program actually improve student performance while reducing schools energy costs? Who knows, but green schools as currently envisioned fail that test.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute based in Dallas.