Yesterday, as part of its Green Inc. series of articles, USA Today reviewed the benefits of sustainable schools in a cover story titled “Green schools: Long on promise, short on delivery.”
Citing research from McGraw-Hill, the USA Today article acknowledges the widespread increase in the design and construction of green schools stating, “Green schools exist in every state and account for 45% of new school construction, up from 15% in 2008. . . . By 2025, all school construction will be ‘green.’”
But, USA Today’s article then questions the advantages of green schools:
Advocates say green schools can boost students’ achievement by ensconcing them in quiet, well-ventilated, naturally lit, toxic-free spaces that minimize illness and enhance concentration. . . . But a USA Today review of school-test records, LEED-certification documents and research reports shows little correlation between ‘green schools’ and student performance or energy use. Buildings can get certified by following standard school-construction practice and adding features unrelated to energy use or the interior, such as steps to reduce car trips and water use, ease light pollution and heat reflection, and limit parking capacity and storm-water runoff.
As he has done in the past, Rick Fedrizzi, the CEO and President of U.S. Green Building Council, was quick to fact-check USA Today in an official statement, stating:
Green schools emphasize high indoor air quality, remove toxic materials and products and reduce CO2 emissions. Green schools offer welcoming learning environments that lessen distractions and encourage student participation. On average, green schools use 33% less energy and 32% less water than conventionally constructed schools, significantly reducing utility costs. These are facts.
