by E. M. Wallace, MPH
A group of college students from a church in Texas spent their spring break last year volunteering in an impoverished community in another state. A local nonprofit organization—intent on making a difference in the lives of school-aged children—was familiar with the needs of the target community and had arranged a number of service projects, one of which was cleaning a local school. This cleanup operation did not follow a hurricane, tornado, or flood but rather a more insidious kind of disaster. The school simply couldn’t afford a fulltime custodian—a creeping tragedy in many locales attributed to the slashing of school budgets.
What did the students encounter as they worked for several days cleaning restrooms and classrooms? They were met with thick layers of dust, “filth”, heavy mold and mildew, scattered dead crickets, and vermin droppings on rugs where children are meant to gather and read. It was apparent this operation wasn’t a special, short-term beautification project; this project was putting a BAND-AID® on chronic facility neglect.
Although I believe in the importance of community engagement and certainly value the role of volunteers in schools, I was taken aback at this assignment and the fact that it was initiated by the community rather than by school leaders. How desperate have budgets become that basic cleaning is not adequately funded? And, how dulled (or defeated) have school leaders become to tolerate such subpar facility conditions? A tenet of organizational training is that leaders should not rely on volunteers for mission-critical tasks. I wonder how many school administrators consider regular cleaning of classrooms an ‘optional extra’ or even a ‘luxury’—dependent on the kindness of, in this case, strangers?
Can we agree that a clean school environment is vital to the educational mission? Most importantly, cleaning serves a health purpose and is also a matter of safety and injury prevention. But, even cleaning for cosmetic purposes can make a difference and increase teacher and student satisfaction, productivity, and achievement. Explore the EFC library (www.efc.gwu.edu) and/or read Dr. Linda Lemasters’ (2016) most recent blog to learn more about the research findings supporting the impact of clean schools on health and attendance, learning and achievement, teacher satisfaction, and positive school climate. It is readily apparent that neglect of school facilities is shortsighted and actually sabotages the educational purpose of institutions.
Can we agree on an acceptable baseline standard of cleanliness for schools?
APPA defines custodial service benchmarks on a scale of 1 (Orderly Spotlessness) to 5 (Unkempt Neglect) and finds maintaining schools at Level 2 (Ordinary Tidiness) to Level 3 (Casual Inattention) is generally acceptable. Criteria for each of these levels can be found in APPA’s (n.d.) useful Custodial Operation Self-Analysis tool. (For example, Level 2 allows for up to two days’ worth of dust.) Use the benchmarks as an objective reality check on conditions at your schools.
Can we agree on minimal staffing requirements to achieve a basic level of custodial upkeep? Formulas exist for determining recommended custodial staffing levels for schools, primarily based on square footage, types of spaces, and the desired level of cleaning. Guidelines for schools suggest one janitor can cover from 15,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. in an eight-hour shift, depending on several variables (Minnesota Department of Health, 2008; Lookabaugh & Simmons, 2012).
Beyond ensuring an adequate number of custodial FTEs are in place, the training of cleaning staff is also important. Knowledge of germs and biologics, airborne pollutants, and chemicals; understanding procedures for accidents, spills, and waste disposal; awareness of safety and environmental regulation; and strategies for efficiency are core competencies to address (Mudarri, 2012). Although volunteers—with appropriate supervision, protective equipment, supplies, and training—might supplement cleaning efforts at times, they should not be thrown in, unequipped and unprepared, as substitutes for professional cleaning staff.
Can we agree on who is ultimately responsible for maintaining clean school environments? Perhaps not. Janitors may come to mind, as they serve on the front lines. However, in the fullest sense of the word, we can all act as ‘custodians’:
cus·to·di·an
Function: noun
: one that guards and protects or takes care of something
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.)
Guard, protect, take care of. These are words that inspire a feeling of safety and wellbeing. Maintaining a clean learning environment is ultimately an expression of welcome and care. A welcoming and safe environment enables teachers and students to more fully engage in learning activities. The service completed by the college volunteers and coordinated by the community group was a commendable and practical expression of caring. As citizens, we can also guard and protect schoolchildren by voicing concerns and expecting accountability.
Responsible management means that educational leaders at the school, district, and state levels ultimately must marshal adequate resources to monitor and maintain a basic level of cleanliness at schools under their jurisdiction. While I sympathize with the challenge of limited resources, it is still fundamentally the responsibility of designated school officials to guard, protect, and take care of their assigned schools and ensure clean, healthy, and safe environments for all building occupants. This should not be left to chance. Someone has to lead the drive to address building conditions and achieve the objective of clean and healthy schools. Demonstrating determination will pay dividends!
References
APPA. (n.d.). Custodial operation self-analysis program. Retrieved from https://www.appa.org/files/general/allcustodialanalysis.pdf
Lemasters, L. (2016, February 4). You can’t afford not to keep your schools clean! Retrieved from http://www.efc.gwu.edu//library/efc-blog/you-cant-afford-not-to-keep-your-schools-clean/
Lookabaugh, G., & Simmons, D. L. (2012). M & O staffing model: How many is enough? Retrieved from http://www.epmamaine.com/Custodial_Staffing_Maine__How_Many_is_Enough__6-26-2012.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Retrieved from wordcentral.com
Minnesota Department of Health. (2008). Cleaning, indoor environmental quality and health: A review of the scientific literature. Retrieved from http://www.buildingwellness.com/assets/documents/Indoor_Environment_Characterization_Of_A_Non_Problem_Building.pdf
Mudarri, D. (2011). Clean & healthy schools for Dummies®. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Publishing.
E. M. Wallace is a Research Associate with the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, a program of the George Washington University and the Graduate School of Education and Human Development. She has a background in community health education and enjoys cross-sector work that promotes child and family health and wellbeing.
