Greening our Schools: Are We on Target?

It’s more than evident that our public schools are in terrible shape in all but the wealthiest of communities, resulting from the sporadic investments our governing bodies have made in schools and school buildings and the “do more with less” zeitgeist and tax policy. Schools are an institution that is not unlike a gigantic ship whose course we are trying to alter, while also trying to keep afloat at the same time. It would appear that schools are in a downward spiral, even though we all agree that education is the key to a brighter future. As a father, I long for the day when schools are not only the pride of their communities, but are also safe and healthy places for my child and all children, and reflect the values of conservation, healthy living and fairness. As a citizen, I believe that if we want to move towards a more sustainable society, we must provide the next generation with a new way of thinking that will empower them to realize that change in their lifetime. As a professional, I have taken on the challenge of helping schools embrace sustainability as a means of providing safe and healthy places conducive to learning, while also imparting the values of sustainability in children through pedagogical and cultural learning.

The USGBC’s Center for Green Schools (CGS) has laid out an audacious goal for greening our nation’s K-12 schools: all students will be in green schools within a generation. Bold, to say the least, given the magnitude of the problem. So how do we get there from here? The Center for Green Schools has a multi-pronged approach that includes lobbying on the state, federal and local levels; education and training programs; outreach to schools and communities, including the recent Green Apple Day of Service; and probably other programs that I’m not aware of. Since CGS is an outgrowth of the USGBC, it is not surprising that at the end of the day, LEED for Schools certification is the bar that has been set to measure success. But is this the right way to go? Let’s explore.

Some detailed analysis of The Green Building Certification Institute’s (sister to USGBC that manages project certification and professional credentials) database of registered and certified projects shows that there are about 2,500 LEED-registered schools (all rating systems except LEED for Neighborhood Development) and a little over 700 LEED-certified schools. These represent about 5% each of total LEED registrations and certifications. By all measures this is a great accomplishment, in that these numbers represent a real trend. However, the amount of work left to do is staggering: there are over 130,000 school institutions in the US, and some have ballparked the number of school buildings at 150,000 (this figure is difficult to precisely calculate for a number of reasons). To get 130,000 schools through the LEED pipeline would require a breakneck pace of certifications, about 5,200 per year on average (using 25 years as the timeframe of one generation). 

Looking back at CGS’s goal of green schools for all in a generation, is LEED really the tool to get there? In my opinion, the answer is no; at least not by itself. Complex problems require multifaceted solutions, and schools are certainly no exception. I posit we need to develop and integrate the tools that can complement LEED, but also work to address the other myriad issues that schools face. I present myself as qualified to engage in this discourse as a result of working in green building and LEED consulting for six years, including work on several schools that pursued LEED. Furthermore, I have been working on a healthy schools initiative in Pennsylvania for the past two years, which is focused on giving schools the capacity to implement practices that will provide learning environments that are healthy and safe. Although there are undoubtedly many other professionals that have much greater depths of knowledge and experience in this area than me,  I consider myself familiar enough with the issues to offer my perspective. 

I feel a good starting place to this discussion is to identify the strengths that LEED brings to the vision of greening our schools, but also call out what the shortcomings are and what can be done to improve upon them. 

Strengths 

• LEED provides the structure that helps to guide decisionmaking by project teams on creating greener buildings. This allows projects to incorporate environmentally sensitive strategies into their buildings without having to be fully versed on each and every strategy, why it is important, and how to measure its success.
• LEED is nationally and internationally recognized, and is a household name in many circles. This brings credibility, legitimacy and attention to all of USGBC’s initiatives (including the Center for Green Schools), as well as a megaphone by which to spread the gospel.
• LEED has driven the entire building industry and its supply chain to be more accountable and transparent on its practices. It has incentivized each agent in the supply chain to examine their own role and what they can do differently to better serve the market demand for environmentally responsible products and services.
• LEED creates a means by which buildings can be quantitatively compared against one another with respect to their environmental performance. This helps to minimize confusion on the marketplace from “greenwashing” that occurs when someone refers to a product, building or something else as being “green” without clear substantiation of how or why.
• LEED sets high standards, encouraging people and organizations to strive beyond their comfort zone to achieve greater impact. LEED has been put on a regular update cycle, which allows the USGBC continually raise the bar to ensure that the building industry is continuing to improve and innovate.

Weaknesses

• The biggest shortcoming is that LEED makes it possible and easy to do the “what” without understanding the “why” of green building or sustainability. The rewards that LEED certification offer (such as recognition, stakeholder appreciation, and financial windfall in some  cases) have become so compelling that groups pursue it more for the plaque on the wall than for the actual benefits of a green building. While some would probably say that it is better that people do a half-assed green building than none at all, in some instances the principles of green building can be so misapplied a it actually backfires: energy systems that are well-intentioned but poorly executed, bike racks in places where no one could possibly ride their bike to, or failure to enforce policies like no smoking in and around the building. I would argue that these do more damage than good to the green building movement by undermining its credibility.
• As a result of the brand dominance that LEED holds in the marketplace, the USGBC has been able to frame the problem and its approach to solving it in a manner that suits it. This has its benefits as extolled above, but also has the downside that USGBC doesn’t represent all viewpoints and has the capability of crowding out views it doesn’t agree with.
• Not everything that has a positive impact on the environment or human health can be quantified or measured as LEED requires a project team to demonstrate. LEED’s structure of Intent-Requirements-Submittals is well-suited to quantitative activities, but is not the right approach for strategies that aim to build awareness, change perceptions and create organizational alignment, all of which are crucial to broader sustainability initiatives. 
• There is a wide array of actions that make buildings healthier and more efficient, but are not incorporated into LEED. The structure of LEED is not suited to covering every possible activity, but the absence of these actions from the checklist can deemphasize their importance or value.

May people would say that LEED was never intended to be all things green building, and that project teams and organizations are welcome to pursue any meaningful activity under or outside of LEED’s umbrella. While this may be true, one has to be intimately familiar with green building and its goals to know where to look, what it means, and why one should do it. This also has the trappings of a “take it or leave it” attitude, which doesn’t comport with the collaborative approach that is needed to solve the major environmental issues that LEED is intended to address. LEED’s brand is so bright and its market penetration so thorough that to the newcomer, LEED is green building.
This can be a problem for schools that are just beginning the journey of greening their facilities, and don’t know where to turn and to what to start with. Maybe there are some good first steps or low hanging fruit out there, but how do they know to look for it when LEED is right there? We need something more. 

LEED clearly underlies the mission and programs of the Center for Green Schools. This is readily apparent in the resources that the CGS has developed, including the “Greening Existing Schools Project Management Guide” and “The Paid-From-Savings Guide to Green Existing Buildings.” I would argue that CGS is reinforcing LEED’s brand dominance at the expense of its own success, and should consider developing other tools that are more suited to their target audience and their inspiring goal. 

How could the Center for Green Schools accomplish this? A number of ideas come to mind, all of which are oriented towards building on the strengths of LEED and the USGBC, but also plugging the gaps that LEED is not structured to fill. First, CGS absolutely must acknowledge that it is possible for schools to be on the spectrum of sustainability without being LEED-certified, and directly promote this practice.

Second, and a complement to the first, CGS needs to develop a less challenging and more incremental alternative to LEED that still provides the same basic benefits: a framework that guides actions and offers recognition of success. This can leverage LEED’s international recognition, and also build off the type of framework that made LEED so successful in the first place. This new framework should also incorporate important activities that are currently not included in LEED for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the following:

• Additional environmental health and indoor air quality related topics beyond what is already in LEED (the EPA’s IAQ Tools for Schools is a good model to consider);
• Nutrition and wellness (Healthy Schools Campaign has a very useful online guide); and,
• Equity and empowerment (The Yellow Wood Associates Wealth Creation in Rural Communities model is a great starting place; sound off-topic? Trust me, it’s worth reading).

Third, CGS needs to continue to actively establish and cultivate key partnerships with other organizations pursuing similar missions. The USGBC has generally leaned more towards engaging professional organizations and networks, whereas CGS might be better served by tapping into the wealth of grassroots community organizations that have sprung up around schools and education issues. There are many non-profits out there at the national, state and local levels that championing healthy and high-performing schools, which in many ways are an untapped resource. An emphasis on community may serve as a good complement to the USGBC’s strength in the business sector.

Fourth, CGS must build an effective ground game to get the message out to school districts. Currently this has been relegated to the USGBC chapter organizations, which are limited in number (79 nationwide) and are limited by their own budgets and staff capacity. This outreach campaign should include not only the partnerships mentioned previously, but also the niche industry of green building and sustainability consultants that sprung up around to serve as LEED experts. This type of outreach may already be underway, but the new framework mentioned previously could help attract new groups to the cause.

Bby all accounts, LEED has been a smashing success. Instead of just saying that schools are welcome to pursue any measures they like, let’s give them the guidelines and the incentives that made LEED so compelling to the thousands of buildings that have been registered and certified. The reason I have written this position statement is not to bash LEED, but to help make the Center for Green Schools more effective at achieving their goal. It is only through self-criticism and introspection can we find our weaknesses and then determine how best to improve upon them. I believe that we can actually achieve green schools for all in a generation, or if not, then at least come close. But let’s make sure we have all the tools we need at our disposal to get there…