A/C in the schools

[gatordog]

Back-of-the-envelope calculation time:

Recent article said 204 budget is $257 million.
Say ~3/4 go to teacher salary....$200 mil.
Say half of this goes to ES teachers....$100 mil.

For ~180 day school year, we pay for ES instruction...$0.6 mil per day.

Lets say in a hot ES with no A/C...you get 10% efficiency loss (I had to think a bit about this. This includes messing with fans and windows, moving classes to unusual area, watching out for health of kids, reminding them to stay hydrated, passing out ice chips or popsicles, hearing complaints....and just feeling miserable. )

So the staff instruction "cost" on hot days is 0.06 mil. We pay this yet are not getting good instruction return for the dollar due to hot environment.

So payback time for 15 million investment is about:
$15 mil/$0.06 mil per day = 250 days.

Assuming (conservatively I think) only a dozen days in late summer, another dozen in early summer of good A/C usage...you have about 25 days per school year of better efficiency, and therefore reach breakeven on our investment in 10 years. Which matches the payoff time of the bond isssue.

This suggests that the bond issue approximately "pays for itself" in staff efficiency and ES instruction. We cannot ignore fact that there is another cost besides just the up front money for A/C. There is also a cost of us paying ES staff to do a job (teach our kids) yet having them divert some fraction of their time and energy and concentration to cope with uncomfortable enviroment.

This quick calc only considers staff paychecks. What is not factored in as "dollars gained" is 500-900 kids per ES feeling better about going to school and being able to concentrate harder for a fair fraction of the school year.

[gatormom]

In 2001, the referendum committee for the first time decided that the issues of air conditioning new buildings and air conditioning existing buildings were separate. While they concluded that they did not wish to ask the public for $800,000 per building to air condition the existing elementary buildings, they also concluded that there was no longer any reason to continue to build elementary schools without air conditioning. That's why only two of our 21 elementary schools, Owen and Peterson, are air conditioned.

After rereading Metzger's letter, I noticed that the $800,000 figure, thus the 15M, is from 2001. I wonder what it would cost today to retrofit the schools. Does anyone know?

[Arch]

Gatordog,

That's a good way to look at the numbers, but I would even say the benefits go beyond the 25 days of heat by controlling humidity and air quality year round.

Asking for little children to be able to learn in an environment that is 'better than being outside' and 'more comfy than a stuffy closet' really isn't asking that much in the scheme of things.

[Arch]

justme said:

archwinsome said:

Absolutely.. and things break and need repair and upkeep along the way too. That should all be factored in with some 'WOOPS!' cushion and put as a dollar figure for a vote.

The referendum for MV didn't include operating or maintenence costs. Where was this logic there?

Since I wasn't on that committee, you would have to ask someone else who was. I did not kid myself for a minute though thinking it was one price, and the cost to operate MV ongoing would be $0.00.

Counter arguments to installing AC will bring up the ongoing costs... If the estimates are up front already then that is an argument path they can not take (you know the argument: They're HIDING the ONGOING COSTS, BLAH BLAH BLAH *WHINE CRY POUT STOMP FEET* the SB HAS TO GO!!!!)

Pop their balloon ahead of time. That way, their only argument is the disclosed price tag that is inclusive and not any "they're trying to deceive us by not telling us the ongoing expenses up front" emotional crap that people love to toss out there to shoot down any spending vote.

[doctorwho]

gatormom said:

In 2001, the referendum committee for the first time decided that the issues of air conditioning new buildings and air conditioning existing buildings were separate. While they concluded that they did not wish to ask the public for $800,000 per building to air condition the existing elementary buildings, they also concluded that there was no longer any reason to continue to build elementary schools without air conditioning. That's why only two of our 21 elementary schools, Owen and Peterson, are air conditioned.

After rereading Metzger's letter, I noticed that the $800,000 figure, thus the 15M, is from 2001. I wonder what it would cost today to retrofit the schools. Does anyone know?

I understand recent estimates are more like $1.1M per school not 800K - which makes sense since that was a 6 year old quote. The total then would be approx $22M for A/C installation.

Using previous calc assumptions - based on a $300K house I think that works out to be about $50 / yr.

Anyone moving to take a referendum forward will need to ensure we start with current data

[bob]

archwinsome said:

justme said:

The referendum for MV didn't include operating or maintenence costs. Where was this logic there?

Since I wasn't on that committee, you would have to ask someone else who was. I did not kid myself for a minute though thinking it was one price, and the cost to operate MV ongoing would be $0.00.

Counter arguments to installing AC will bring up the ongoing costs... If the estimates are up front already then that is an argument path they can not take (you know the argument: They're HIDING the ONGOING COSTS, BLAH BLAH BLAH *WHINE CRY POUT STOMP FEET* the SB HAS TO GO!!!!)

Pop their balloon ahead of time. That way, their only argument is the disclosed price tag that is inclusive and not any "they're trying to deceive us by not telling us the ongoing expenses up front" emotional crap that people love to toss out there to shoot down any spending vote.

A good place to start would be the electric bill of Owen versus another one of the grade schools.

[wvhsparent]

Also St Charles SD estimated it would cost them about 20mil for AC in 17 ES close to 1.2mil/school

[204parent]

gatordog said:

Back-of-the-envelope calculation time:

Recent article said 204 budget is $257 million.
Say ~3/4 go to teacher salary....$200 mil.
Say half of this goes to ES teachers....$100 mil.

For ~180 day school year, we pay for ES instruction...$0.6 mil per day.

Lets say in a hot ES with no A/C...you get 10% efficiency loss (I had to think a bit about this. This includes messing with fans and windows, moving classes to unusual area, watching out for health of kids, reminding them to stay hydrated, passing out ice chips or popsicles, hearing complaints....and just feeling miserable. )

So the staff instruction "cost" on hot days is 0.06 mil. We pay this yet are not getting good instruction return for the dollar due to hot environment.

So payback time for 15 million investment is about:
$15 mil/$0.06 mil per day = 250 days.

Assuming (conservatively I think) only a dozen days in late summer, another dozen in early summer of good A/C usage...you have about 25 days per school year of better efficiency, and therefore reach breakeven on our investment in 10 years. Which matches the payoff time of the bond isssue.

This suggests that the bond issue approximately "pays for itself" in staff efficiency and ES instruction. We cannot ignore fact that there is another cost besides just the up front money for A/C. There is also a cost of us paying ES staff to do a job (teach our kids) yet having them divert some fraction of their time and energy and concentration to cope with uncomfortable enviroment.

This quick calc only considers staff paychecks. What is not factored in as "dollars gained" is 500-900 kids per ES feeling better about going to school and being able to concentrate harder for a fair fraction of the school year.

I happen to agree with you that A/C would help provide a better learning environment, but others on this board have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that A/C has no effect on test scores. So, if the better learning environment doesn't help increase test scores, why bother?

Why don't we turn off the A/C in all the schools to save money since we can provide exactly the same quality education without it?

[Arch]

It's about health and air quality IMO... not about test scores or 'comfort'.

[gatormom]

archwinsome said:

It's about health and air quality IMO... not about test scores or 'comfort'.

I agree Arch. My daughter is suffering through a 3rd day with a migraine headache that was triggered by seasonal allergies. ES was a nightmare for her.

These allergies are very common and last through spring and fall, heat does not factor into it.

[doctorwho]

204parent said:

gatordog said:

Back-of-the-envelope calculation time:

Recent article said 204 budget is $257 million.
Say ~3/4 go to teacher salary....$200 mil.
Say half of this goes to ES teachers....$100 mil.

For ~180 day school year, we pay for ES instruction...$0.6 mil per day.

Lets say in a hot ES with no A/C...you get 10% efficiency loss (I had to think a bit about this. This includes messing with fans and windows, moving classes to unusual area, watching out for health of kids, reminding them to stay hydrated, passing out ice chips or popsicles, hearing complaints....and just feeling miserable. )

So the staff instruction "cost" on hot days is 0.06 mil. We pay this yet are not getting good instruction return for the dollar due to hot environment.

So payback time for 15 million investment is about:
$15 mil/$0.06 mil per day = 250 days.

Assuming (conservatively I think) only a dozen days in late summer, another dozen in early summer of good A/C usage...you have about 25 days per school year of better efficiency, and therefore reach breakeven on our investment in 10 years. Which matches the payoff time of the bond isssue.

This suggests that the bond issue approximately "pays for itself" in staff efficiency and ES instruction. We cannot ignore fact that there is another cost besides just the up front money for A/C. There is also a cost of us paying ES staff to do a job (teach our kids) yet having them divert some fraction of their time and energy and concentration to cope with uncomfortable enviroment.

This quick calc only considers staff paychecks. What is not factored in as "dollars gained" is 500-900 kids per ES feeling better about going to school and being able to concentrate harder for a fair fraction of the school year.

I happen to agree with you that A/C would help provide a better learning environment, but others on this board have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that A/C has no effect on test scores. So, if the better learning environment doesn't help increase test scores, why bother?

Why don't we turn off the A/C in all the schools to save money since we can provide exactly the same quality education without it?

Because there have been some valid ( IMHO ) health issues raised and they need to be looked at -- that is a valid reason to move forward. The other arguments hold no water when reviewed so why not push forward with something that is valid ?

[bob]

Some weather average for Naperville
www.weatherreports.com/United_States/IL/Naperville/averages.html


Average number of 90 degree days over the last 30 years in Sept : 1

May: .5

[momto4]

bob said:

Some weather average for Naperville
www.weatherreports.com/United_States/IL/Naperville/averages.html


Average number of 90 degree days over the last 30 years in Sept : 1

May: .5

But if there are classrooms that run 10-15 degrees warmer than outside, it's the days over 75 or 80 that need to be counted.

[bob]

The keyword is IF they run that hot.

average high temp in Sept is 77, May is 73, Aug is 83

[Arch]

Bob, multiple days in a row of a classroom over 105, let alone the breathing complications that go along with it is a little silly in this day and age.

5-10 year olds do not do well in that for 6 hours a day.


People balk when others leave a dog in a car w/ the windows cracked on a sunny day for 5 minutes but some don't seem to think of it being that big a deal doing the same thing to children for hours.