How Community and the Built Environment can affect School Performance
Marissa wilson | geo509/id655 | spring 2015
introduction and background
>> School performance is affected by many different internal and external factors. The built environment surrounding schools is an umbrella of contributions that affect the educational environment. The community and neighborhood, nature’s presence, transportation and commute time, health and well-being are all factors that have an influence on the teacher- student relationship and school performance as a whole. The built environment surrounding three elementary schools in Northeast Lexington were the analyzed and were the driving force for this research. William Wells Brown elementary is the number one failed school in all of Kentucky and it is located less than a mile away from Ashland elementary, which is one of the highest-ranking schools in Lexington. Harrison elementary is in the same Northeast community was William Wells Brown and is ranked with a 5 out of 10, which is the highest in this Northeast community of Lexington, Kentucky. School performance and teacher-student wellbeing have a converse relationship with one another. Typically, if teacher well-being is high, then school performance is high. If teacher well-being is low, then school performance is lower. The same is true for students. They both affect one another’s relationship in the same way (Briner & Dewberry 2007). The community in this area has a very rich and cultural background history, but outsiders are coming in and are taking over, destroying the culture of the people who have lived there for many years. This new community development is ultimately causing them to be pushed away from this area they call home due to lack of jobs and unaffordable new housing.
Literature review
>>
the built environment
Richard J. Jackson, director of the National Center of Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that,
“We humans often assume that what is, had to be that way. In reality, virtually everything in our built environment is the way it is because someone designed it that way� (Jackson, R. 2003). The built environment, according to Srinivasan et al. 2003, is defined as our homes, schools, workplaces, parks or recreation areas, business areas and roads. It extends into the electric transmission lines above, and below to subway trains and across the land in roads and highways. The built environment includes all buildings, spaces and products that are created or modified by human nature. It effects indoor and outdoor physical environments in forms such as climate and air quality, as well as social environments and community participation (Srinivasan et al. 2003). These environmental supports are important factors in enhancing human health (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003) and they affect our overall quality of life as humans (Srinivasan et al. 2003). Hippocrates, the ancient Greek father of medicine, (World Biography 2015) the Romans and psychiatrist, Carl Jung, all knew that our physical environment affects our physical and mental health (Jackson, R. 2003). People are more reasonable, cooperative, helpful, and satisfied when the environment supports their everyday needs (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). Research has shown evidence suggesting that physical and mental health problems ranging from anxiety, depression, attention deficit disorder, substance abuse, aggressive behavior, asthma, heart disease, and obesity are all onset from the built environment, mostly due to poor urban planning and inadequate housing. Inadequate housing may cause people physical and mental stress. Dilapidated housing with leaking pipes, peeling paint, or cracks and holes in ceilings can have negative effects on the human immune system (Srinivasan et al. 2003).
>>
the built environment & community
Despite the fact that many humans accept the world as it is, we do have the ability to plan ahead, shape the future, and adapt to new surroundings (Jackson, R. 2003). Therefore, it is time to build communities that are designed to promote and encourage physical and mental well-being. We need to utilize the unique ability of humans to plan creatively for healthy communities. The first step is to educate professionals such as architects, health professionals, transportation professionals etc. (Srinivasan et al. 2003) who can help build these holistic environments. However, ordinary people need to fully understand the elements of the built environment that promote health and well-being as well. From research dating from 2003, the public health community knows that some environments promote walking, biking, and social interaction more than others do (Jackson, R. 2003); and in today’s world, we have seen newer communities that are starting to utilize and build to encompass the built environment surrounding it. In urban communities (like Northeast Lexington), participation can link humans to both the physical and the social environment, which then encourages people to be a part of the local community (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). Creating activities that increase a person’s effectiveness can promote a healthy lifestyle within themselves, and can increase the chance of wanting to live in an environment that best matches with that person’s needs. Attractions such as landmarks and “third places,” (cafes, stores, pubs etc.) offered by the built environment and the environmental patterns that support way-finding can create familiarity and a sense-of-place which can strongly effect how people relate to one another in communities. The residential neighborhoods that have been built in the last half-century have decreased the sense of community, leading to social isolation because they are not utilizing the surrounding built environment. These urban and regional planning communities are related to physical, mental, and social well-being and thus emphasize that community and trust need such places where neighbors can meet and become familiar with one another to promote well-being and create a sense-of-community within their living environment (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003).
Communities that have opportunities for public participation often hear that the people want more natural areas and trails. Having natural areas in neighborhoods promote physical exercise and provide incentives for walking and bicycling (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). Outdoor areas for activity can enhance the likelihood that people will become familiar with one another in their community. Participating in outdoor and nature activities can increase the sense of pride in one’s community, which can strengthen urban neighborhoods. Natural areas encourage outdoor activities and have the potential for making one’s neighborhood more reasonable and one’s community safer. Presence of nature can enhance exploration and understanding as well as creating meaningful action in the form of community volunteering and participation. Even minimal encounters with nature from inside buildings have shown to be related to health benefits, and studies have shown the presence of nature is related to reduced crime, aggression, and violence. In a study conducted over a 5-year time period of older people who had walk- able outdoor green space, results showed this led to longevity of life, even after controlling for age, socioeconomic status, gender, and marital status who had access to walk able (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). Research on creating healthy and sustainable communities recommends that thorough planning is needed to create an environment that is conducive to the mental and physical well-being of humans as well as the natural environment (Srinivasan et al. 2003). Examples of the principles for incorporating green spaces and environmentally conscious construction in the built environment include using natural daylight, solar collectors, passive cooling, and nontoxic materials; harvesting rainwater; installing operable windows; creating pedestrian and bike greenways; and filling building structures with plants, water, art, light, and natural air (Srinivasan et al. 2003). A working definition for sustainable communities as “healthy communities” where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives (Srinivasan et al. 2003).
>>
transportation vs. physical activity
In our world today, cars are such a necessity for work and other daily activities in American life. The annual hours of highway traffic delay per person in urban areas had risen from 16 hours to 62 hours a year from 1982 to 2000. On top of that, Americans now work more hours than others in any major industrial nations in the world. Transportation can contribute to mental fatigue (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). With growing private vehicle costs, lengthy commutes, increasing traffic delays, and long work hours, many parents may feel stressed financially and may feel like their time is not utilized successfully (Jackson, R. 2003). People are less active because they walk less, vehicle exhaust pollutes air quality, vehicle injuries increase, and mental health and social capital are negatively affected. Children are less likely to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives because of the incapability of walking to school due to hazardous streets and long distances (Jackson, R. 2003). Studies have shown the benefits of having schools within walking distance in a variety of places. According to the Ontario Walkability Study, a majority of more than 6000 elementary school–aged children preferred to walk or bicycle to school. The walk to school helps children understand their local environment (Kaplan & Kaplan 2003). However, only 10% of children today, walk or bicycle to school, which is a 40% reduction over the last 20 years. Research shows that inadequate urban planning, including an absence of bike paths and sidewalks, has resulted in an increasingly sedentary lifestyle for children, which has overall contributed to the growing rates of childhood obesity (Srinivasan et al. 2003)
>>
performance & well-being
There have been research studies connecting the links between staff well-being and school performance. Based on a summary of main findings of research done in Birbeck College in 2007 in the United Kingdom; in order to improve school performance, we need to improve teacher well-being. To improve teacher wellbeing, we need to improve the built environment they live in. Not only teachers, but all employees’ feelings at work – satisfaction, stress and attitudes toward job – affect their performance. The relationship between how people feel and how they behave impacts their performance. Work environments that have higher levels of wellbeing tend to also have higher levels of work performance. The methodology used in this study was conducted by the Worklife Support’s Well-Being Program’s online Self- Review survey of of staff perceptions. SAT scores and value-added measures were used to measure school performance. Three categories were measured; feeling valued and cared for, feeling overloaded and job stimulation and employment, in which the average levels were calculated at primary schools (school-level teacher well-being) and secondary schools (school level pupil performance) (Briner & Dewberry 2007). The results concluded that when teachers experience improvements in school, their feelings of stimulation and enjoyment and school performance may also increase and improve. Findings suggest that there is a relationship between how teachers in a school on average feel about their work and the performance of pupils in that school. However, many other factors can effect the outcome of this study, but overall,
“How teachers feel on an everyday basis is likely to affect their performance and so, in turn, the performance of the pupils they teach. This may happen in several ways. For example, happier, motivated teachers may make pupils feel happier, motivated and more confident. Happier teachers may also be able to concentrate better on the job of teaching, and experience more motivation to help pupils in need of special attention.” (Briner & Dewberry 2007).
Mapping process
>>
methodology
The first map shows where schools are located within, and near this Northeast quadrant of Lexington. The two schools located within the quadrant are (WWB) William Wells Brown elementary (located in the middle of the three) and Harrison elementary (located towards the top). Ashland elementary is located right outside of the quadrant boundary, at the bottom. These three schools were compared because of their school performance rankings. William Wells Brown is ranked as the number one failed school in all of Kentucky. Harrison elementary is ranked with a 5 out 10, which is the highest ranking within this quadrant. Ashland elementary is ranked with a 10 out of 10, which means it is one of the best performing schools in Lexington, and it is only less than a mile away from the number one failed school on all of Kentucky (WWB) (Schools in FCPS 2015). After observing, collecting, analyzing and comparing a variety of data from these communities, many contributing factors were determined. These included, student race, free and reduced lunch percentage based on household income, amount of green space/playgrounds located around the schools, and the surrounding neighborhood communities, all of which are built environment factors. The majority of students attending WWB and Harrison elementary are African-American and 96% qualify for free and reduced lunch. Students who attend Ashland elementary mostly White and only 42% qualify for free and reduced lunch. WWB is the newest school and has the most green space surrounding the facility. Harrison elementary has limited green space and Ashland elementary barely has any. However, the result of the amount of green space does not correlate with the research findings mentioned above. WWB is located in a mixed neighborhood, where old houses are being replaced with newer, unaffordable houses and town-homes. Harrison is located in a historic neighborhood filled with huge, old houses, and Ashland elementary is located within a residential developed neighborhood. After learning about the student demographics and analyzing the environment and communities that surround these schools, the focus switched more onto the teachers. Finding out where these teachers are coming from to attend these schools to work was the next step in the research process. The Fayette County Research Team were able to create a data set of all the teacher home zip codes for each school.
>>
initial background research 01
william wells brown is ranked as the number one failed school in all of kentucky
02
ashland elementary is ranked as one of the highest performing schools in lexington and is less than a mile away from wwb and less than two miles from harrison elementary
03
harrison elementary is ranked the highest with a 5 out of 10 in this same northeast area of lexington as wwb
>>
initial research questions
04
is it the teachers who are affecting the student learning outcomes or the students who are affecting the teacher performance outcomes
05
where are these teachers coming from to attend and work at these schools
06
How might we enhance the learning environment for the students and teachers to help raise student performance and to improve the teaching methods in these schools
?
Schools in NORTHEAST quadrant of lexington
>>
MAP KEY LEXINGTON, Kentucky schools northeast lexington
harrison elementary
ashland elementary
William Wells Brown Elementary
student demographics & site analysis
10
final mapping results
>>
teacher home zip code data
The teacher home zip code data is represented in these next three sections, one for each school. The darker the area is, the more teachers live in that area. The lighter the area gets, the less teachers live in that area. The range of travel time for teachers at Harrison elementary was 15-45 minutes, with the majority of teachers living within the 15 minute commute time. However, the teachers of this school live more spread out than the other two schools. The range of travel time for teachers at William Wells Brown is 14 minutes to an hour, with the majority of teachers living within the 30 commute time. The range of travel time for teachers at Ashland elementary is 8 - 31 minutes, with the majority of teachers living within the 17 minute commute time. This map shows that the teachers are living within closer ranges when comparing to the other two schools.
data analysis of teacher home zip codes: darker>> more dense lighter >>+ less dense
harrison elementary distance circle miles and minutes
data analysis of teacher home zip codes: darker>> more dense lighter >>+ less dense
william Wells Brown Elementary distance circle miles and minutes
data analysis of teacher home zip codes: darker>> more dense lighter >>+ less dense
ashland elementary distance circle miles and minutes
analysis of the community mapping
>>
results & assumptions
We can assume from these maps that when teachers live more closely in range to one another that the school performance is better. Also, the lesser the commute time, the more successful the school is. This is just based on an assumption though, many other factors can contribute to school performance. Another assumption might include that these teachers are coming from different communities, which might affect their health and well-being and overall teaching performance. Lastly, another assumption might be that teachers who live closer are more engaged with students because they spend less time commuting to and from work everyday. This could lead to less stress and less amount of their time is taken up on a daily basis. Many of the contributing factors in a built environment that were covered in the literature review have been proven to be true or relate to the research that was conducted in this Northeast area of Lexington, Kentucky.
application suggestions
>>
future research opportunities macro:
how might we promote student and teacher wellness through the design of the built environment and how might we enhance student and teacher performance through the learning and teaching methods in the educational environment
micro:
there are seven different learning styles, how might educators teach in ways that cater to each learning style to overall enhance student learning
7 learning styles: visual
aural
verbal
solitary
physical
social logical
?
conclusion teacher -student relationship student performance
teacher wellness
student wellness
teacher performance
>> Through the literature review and research that has been conducted, we can clearly see the relationship between teachers and students that is linked to well-being and performance. The community and neighborhood, nature’s presence, transportation and commute time, health and well-being are all factors that have an influence on the teacher- student relationship and school performance as a whole. The built environment encompasses a variety of factors that highly affect the educational environment. Carefully designing future built environments, and improving existing ones without removing the diverse cultural history is key to enhancing the overall quality of life for humans. Having successful built environments overall contributes to a healthy life and well-being for the people who are living in them. However, there are other factors inside schools that also affect performance and well-being, which include most of the same design aesthetics. Allowing natural lighting in through windows and glass, addressing acoustics, selecting appropriate furniture design for classroom layout and users, as well as having healthy indoor air quality all contribute to school performance. From evidence-based design research, it is possible to design a classroom that improves academic performance and can overall enhance the outcome of the built environment surrounding it. Evidence-based design research has also been focusing on the learning environments and the academic performance of schools (Tomasi, n.d.). There are seven different learning styles and only a few are practiced by the teaching methods of educators in our schools. There are a huge variety of endless factors that affect school performance, and we need to start focusing on the future of our built environment to enhance the overall health and well-being of people and educational environments as well.
references
>> Briner, R., & Dewberry, D. (2007). Staff wellbeing is key to school success. A Research Study into the Links between Staff Wellbeing and School Performance., 1-4. Jackson, R. (2003). Editorials: The Impact Of The Built Environment On Health: An Emerging Field. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1382-1384. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Reviewing the Evidence: Health, Supportive Environments, And The Reasonable Person Model. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1484-1489. Schools in Fayette County School District - Lexington, KY | Great Schools. (2015, January 1). Retrieved May 3, 2015, from http://www. greatschools.org/kentucky/lexington/fayette-county-school-district/ schools/?page=3&st=public Srinivasan, S., O’Fallon, L., & Dearry, A. (2003). Reviewing the Evidence: Creating Healthy Communities, Healthy Homes, Healthy People: Initiating A Research Agenda On The Built Environment And Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1446-1450. Tomasi, AIA LEED AP, Don. (n.d.). Evidence-based Design in Schools. Classroom Design and Academic Achievement, 1-4. World Biography. (2015, January 1). Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www. notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hippocrates.html
marissa wilson id 655/geo509 05/05/15