Student Performance in Daylit Schools

The conclusions of a recent research project on the impacts of full-spectrum light on student performance and health prompted us to investigate the performance of students attending three daylit schools that were designed by our firm. The 1992 "Study into the Effects of Light on Children of Elementary School Age: A Case of Daylight Robbery" was conducted in Alberta, Canada by the Policy and Planning Branch of Alberta Education. Over a two year period, the study compared children attending elementary schools with full-spectrum light versus children attending similar schools with normal lighting conditions. The most striking conclusions of this study were: a. the students in full-spectrum light were healthier and attended school 3.2 to 3.8 days more per year; b. libraries with superior light resulted in significantly lower noise levels; c. full-spectrum lighting induced more positive moods in students; and d. because of the additional vitamin D received by the students in full-spectrum light, they had 9 times less dental decay and grew in height an average of 2.1 cm more (over the two year period) than students attending schools with average light. The following analysis investigates the relationships between elementary and middle school student performance and natural daylighting. The performance of students attending three daylit schools designed by Innovative Design for Johnston County Schools, North Carolina was analyzed and compared to the County school system as a whole and other new schools within the same County. The first daylit school, completed in August of 1990, was the Four Oaks Elementary School. The Clayton Middle School and the Selma Middle School were very similar in design; both were developed around a daylit prototype design and constructed in the spring of 1993. 1. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TESTING PERFORMANCE To compare the performance of the students, the test results from both the California Achievement Tests (1987/88 1991/92) and the End-Of-Grade Tests (1992/93 1994/95) were compiled for every school (16 elementary and 8 middle schools) within Johnston County. The test result summaries were provided by the Johnston County School System. From 1987/88 through 1991/92 the average total battery scores of the California Achievement Tests were compared for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students. First and second grades were not tested. After 1991/92 the average of the reading and math components of the End-Of-Grade Tests are used to compare performance. The California Achievement Tests were given each year through the 1991/92 school year. The tests were administered in March or April of the school year. After the 1991/92 school year, the evaluation testing was switched to End-Of-Grade Testing and was given in May of each year. Because of the differences in the tests, it has been recommended by both Johnston County Schools and State Department of Public Instruction that we do not compare scores between the two types of tests. The analysis consisted of reviewing: a. improvement in performance within each school from year to year; b. relative improvement in performance between Innovative Design's three daylit schools and the improvement in the County-wide average for similar grade levels; c. first year student performance at a fourth daylit school (designed by another firm); and d. relative improvement in performance of a new, nondaylit middle school constructed in the County during the same time frame. Because significant differences existed between the student and teacher make-up at each school, the comparisons we have made do not attempt to draw conclusions regarding the average scores between the various schools. To help minimize this problem of false comparisons, the relative improvement within each school is viewed as the more significant comparison. For example, if the CAT score average at one school increases from 60 to 70, this 17% improvement is compared to another school whose grade average may have risen from 50 to 55, or a 10% improvement. But, the average CAT score of 60 versus 50 was not considered important. All three of Innovative Design's schools incorporated designs which maximized daylighting through the use of south-facing roof monitors and allowed controlled sunlight to enter into all major occupied spaces within the schools. The roof monitors were designed to provide superior lighting (in excess of 70 footcandles) two-thirds of the time during which the spaces were to be utilized. In all cases the roof monitors were equipped with baffles which eliminate glare into the rooms and with light sensors which control the artificial lighting. Smaller windows were also incorporated for view but were not a significant element in the daylighting strategies. 2. FOUR OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Four Oaks School situation is unique because we were able to trace the progression of a rather homogeneous group of students through various classroom environments. In December of 1988 the majority of the old Four Oaks School burned to the ground and the facilities were replaced by a new, daylit school. During the 1988/89 and 1989/90 school years the students were placed in mobile units/temporary facilities. In August of 1990 the new daylit K-5 School was completed and the first CAT's were taken by students in the new daylit school during 1990/91. The last year that CAT's were given was the 1991/92 school year. From a case study standpoint, the Four Oaks situation reflects a good comparison because we are able to track a student population from 1) a condition where the same group of students was in a typical Johnston County school setting, to 2) a situation where they were relocated to mobile classrooms, to 3) where the students were in daylit school facilities. Table 1 shows the results of the CAT scores for the students at the Four Oaks School and the averages for all Johnston County School (including the daylit schools) during the same time frame. The scores reflect the averages of the total battery of reading, language, and math. Four Oaks Elementary Daylit School (1987/88 1991/92 California Achievement Tests