Objective PI.2 Assure accessible and high quality educational facilities

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Proportion of households within 1/2 mile of a public elementary school

Benchmark #1: For residential uses, is the project within 1/2 mile of a public elementary school?

AND

Benchmark #2: If yes, does the project contribute to creating safe routes to the school, for example through improving pedestrian and bicycle safety or funding safety education for residents?
  • Use the Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool to evaluate and manage key environmental, safety, and health issues at school facilities1
  • Co-locate local government agencies and/or community organizations to promote creative program service delivery and more efficient use of public land and buildings2,3
  • Support community partnerships that promote continuing education, high quality education, and life-long learning4
  • Promote extensive and innovative community uses of the public school facility, such as hosting evening continuing education classes, a community garden, afterschool programs, local media office, intramural team sports, community workshops, job skills trainings, activities for seniors, community arts and cultural events and activities, etc.5

  • Promote "Safe Routes to Schools" to decrease traffic and pollution, promote walking and biking to school, encourage greater enforcement of traffic laws, and create safer streets to improve the health of children and the community6,7

  • Use strategies developed by the 21st Century School Fund's Building Educational Success Together (BEST) program, New Schools Better Neighborhoods, and the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities to improve quality of school facilities in urban communities8-10
  • Actively seek opportunities for new and/or additional sources of funds for financing school building improvements and program delivery11,12
  • Modify Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to include children as an additional demographic to be serviced in order to promote families' use of public transit and carpooling to children's activities (i.e., school, day care, playgrounds, and community activities)13,14

  • Encourage collaboration among the School District facility planners, developers, and the City Planning Department when choosing new school sites to ensure that students and their families can safely and easily walk, bike, or take transit to the campus15

  • Site educational facilities greater than 500 feet from freeways, busy roadways and stationary sources of air pollution since they house sensitive populations (children)16
  • Preserve the availability of sites for civic facilities, such as schools, to ensure that facilities are adequate for population growth17
  • Establish joint-use agreements with school districts and other agencies that identify roles and responsibilities and provide standards for operations and maintenance, scheduling, and capital improvements18,19
b. Proportion of children attending neighborhood public schools
Benchmark: Does land use siting ensure public school students' public transit commute is less than 30 minutes?
c. Proportion of schools achieving an Academic Performance Index Base of 800 or more

Benchmark: If the project is a new, remodeled or expanded school facility, does it promote good air quality, access to day light, and quiet environments in the school, for example using the Collaborative for High Performance Schools’ Best Practices, to promote better student achievement?
d. Public school capacity and demand

Benchmark: For residential uses, does the project contribute additional funding (beyond the required impact fee) to local schools to mitigate potential increased demand by new residents?

Regulatory Minimum: SB 50, State Ed Code Sec. 17620-26.  Developers must pay $2.24 per square foot for all residential units and $0.09 to $0.27 per square foot for all non-residential spaces, depending upon zoning classification.
e. Proportion of schools with joint use playgrounds

Benchmark: If the project is a new, remodeled or expanded school facility, is it planned as a multi-use facility involving a collaborative of organizations that integrates community services and uses (e.g., pre-school, after-school, community recreational facility, neighborhood park, community serving non-profit)?
Secondary
f. Proportion of public schools with a school garden

Benchmark: If the project is a new, remodeled, or expanded school facility, does the school provide green space equal to 30% of the project's site area for a school garden?
g. Proportion of students graduating from high school by school

Benchmark: If the project is a new, remodeled or expanded school facility, does it promote good air quality, access to day light, and quiet environments in the school, for example using the Collaborative for High Performance Schools’ Best Practices, to promote better student achievement?
h. Ratio of public school population to citywide school-aged population

No identified development target.

Health-based Rationale

  • Educational outcomes positively associated with lifetime earnings, positive health behaviors, and prolonged life expectancy.20
  • Research on travel mode choice also shows that when schools are located closer to home, more children walk and/or bicycle to school and vehicle pollution emissions fall.21
  • Long distances to school and traffic-related dangers are a primary barrier to walking to school.22
  • Clean, quiet, safe, comfortable and healthy environments are an important component of successful teaching and learning. Educational achievement and student performance have been associated with each of the following aspects of the physical school environment: air quality, temperature, lighting, acoustics, building age/quality, school size and class size.23
  • A study of Los Angeles Unified School Facilities found that compliance with health and safety measures in schools was associated with improved academic performance.24
  • Dropping out of school is associated with delayed employment opportunities, poverty, and poor health. It is also associated, in adolescence, with substance abuse, delinquency, injury, and pregnancy.25
  • Less education is a stronger predictor of partaking in cardiovascular risk factor activities (smoking, poor nutrition, sedentary behavior) than income or occupation (typical socioeconomic status measures).26
  • Between 1960-1986, death rates declined more steeply for men and women with higher educational attainment. Among men with high educational attainment, death rate declined 50%, among those with low educational attainment, the decline was only 15%.27
  • Changes in the physical environment, such as sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and well designed crosswalks, can make walking and biking to school more desirable and safer.28

Established Standards

  1. HP 2010 Objective 22.12: Increase the proportion of the Nation's public and private schools that provide access to their physical activity spaces and facilities for all persons outside of normal school hours.
    Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  2. HP 2010 Objective 7-1: Increase high school completion to 90%.
    Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/

  3. California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §14001 General Standards. School facilities shall be:

    • designed for the environmental comfort and work efficiency of the occupants.
    • designed and engineered with flexibility to accommodate future needs.

  4. California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §14010 Standards for School Site Selection requires that:

    • The site shall be located within the proposed attendance area to encourage student walking and avoid extensive bussing unless bussing is used to promote ethnic diversity.
    • The site shall be selected to promote joint use of parks, libraries, museums and other public services.
    • The district shall consider environmental factors of light, wind, noise, aesthetics, and air pollution in its site selection process.

  5. In 2003, the San Francisco Unified School District adopted the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) recommendations for high performance building designs which include the construction and operation of environmentally efficient school facilities. Accessed on May 14, 2008: http://www.chps.net/chps_schools/pdfs/sfsu_reso.pdf

1. US EPA: Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool http://www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/index.html
2. California Department of Education. School Facility Program Joint-Use Projects. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/jtuse.asp
3. New Schools Better Neighborhoods. Joint-Use Case Studies. http://www.nsbn.org/case/jointuse/
4. Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships. John Hopkins University. http://www.csos.jhu.edu/P2000/center.htm
5. Ontario, Canada Ministry of Education. Community Use of Schools. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/community
6. Safe Routes to School Resources http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/index.cfm
7. Safe Routes to School Case Studies From Around the Country. http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/srts_case_studies.pdf
8. 21st Century Fund: Building Educational Success Together http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/best/best.asp
9. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities: Urban School Facility Issues http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/urban_issues.cfm
10. Center for Cities and Schools http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/
11. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities: School Facilities Funding Options http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/financing_options.cfm
12. California Legislative Analyst's Office. "A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance" http://www.lao.ca.gov/2001/school_facilities/050101_school_facilities.html
13. Canada. School Transport Management http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/UTSP/schooltransportation.htm
14. National Center for Transit Research at University of South Florida: School Pool Programs http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/schoolpool.htm
16. California Air Resources Board "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective" http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm
17. Urban Institute. "The Right Way to Sell Off Public Assets" http://www.urban.org/publications/900984.html
18. California Department of Education. School Facility Program Joint-Use Projects. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/jtuse.asp
19. New Schools Better Neighborhoods. Joint-Use Case Studies. http://www.nsbn.org/case/jointuse/
20. Backlund E, Sorlie PD, Johnson NJ. A comparison of the relationships of education and income with mortality: the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(10):1373-84.
21. Ewing R, Forinash CV, Schroeer W. Neighborhood Schools and Sidewalk Connections. What are the impacts on travel mode choice and vehicle emissions. Transportation Research News. March-April 2005 pp 4-10.
22. Dellinger A, Staybtib C. Barriers to Children Walking and Bicycling to School. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2002;51:701-704.
23. Schneider M. 2000. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Available at: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf. Retrieved 5/14/2008.
24. Buckley J, Schneider M, Shang Y. 2004. LAUSD School Facilities and Academic Performance Report. Available at: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/LAUSD%20Report.pdf. Retrieved 5/13/2008.
25. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and improving health. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
26. Winkelby MA, Jatulis DE, Frank E, Fortmann SP. 1992. Socieconomic status and health: How education, income and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health 82:816-820.
27. Pappas G, Queen S, Hadden W, Fisher G. 1993. The increasing disparity in mortality between socioeconomic groups in the US, 1960 and 1986. New England Journal of Medicine 329:103-109.
28. Ewing R, Schroeer W, Greene W. 2004. School location and student travel: Analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1895:55-63.