Our children are forced to spend 6 hours of their life 5 days a week inside a classroom. The least they deserve is a good environment, and this includes good lighting. I think all of our children should be in rooms with either natural lighting or incandescent lamps, which gives the best quality of light. It may also be difficult for some children to concentrate as well under fluorescent lighting. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that our children are given the optimum environment to be able to learn. http://www.naasln.org/documents/articles/irlen_fluorescent_lighting.pdf http://www.naturalnews.com/022431_public_schools_fluorescent_lights.html http://lowenergylampsinfo.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/fluorescent-lights-giving-pupils-headaches/ New schools should be designed to incorporate natural light. Not just windows, but skylights and light tubes to bring natural light down to lower floors. I would go so far to argue that good lighting is a right, since children are compelled, whether they want to or not, to be in these classrooms for so long. There are already many people who dislike working under flourescent lights so much that it influences their career choice. Even in some of the school administration offices one can occassionally find an employee that keeps the overhead flourescent lights turned off in their private office and has brought in incandescent lamps to work.
Well, you there is the netherlands are doing fine with your public education system if all you need to wory about is lighting. Sure lighting is very important, but it can be fixed on a indivdual basis. By each class room and each school. The problems the USA public education system face are daunting. Failed teachers, failed system, failed administration, and a failed cost that is driving each individual US State into bankrupcy. I understand the Netherlands have a socialist type governance which is ideal for the large population. In the USA we spend over 65% of the state tax revenue on pubic school education, and they are only 30% of the population. Talk about an imbalance.
Here's an article I found on the subject: http://suite101.com/article/student-success-includes-natural-lighting-a138865 Certain special populations of students (autism, ADHD, learning disabilities) may be much more vulnerable to some forms of artificial lighting than others. It can cause more difficulty concentrating, and lead to problems concentrating in school. I don't know why classrooms don't have larger windows and skylights. Certainly everyone would agree that it would improve the lighting quality and greatly reduce energy usage. They could just turn the lights on on cloudy days, and the artifical lights would not have to be as bright. What do you mean? Once the fluorescent lighting has already been installed, not many schools are actually going to go to the trouble and expense of ripping them out and installing a different type of lighting. What choice is the individual student given, exactly? Suppose I was a teacher, and I absolutely hated the artficial lighting (I have actually known one such teacher who said just such a thing, the fluorescent lights gave her migraines). What could I do? Many of these classrooms only have one little window. Sure, I could talk to the administrators. But they are probably not going to do anything. If I try ripping out the lights myelf, I am likely to get fired. They are making LED tubes that can replace fluorescent tubes now, but at 70 dollars for each tube, I just could not afford to replace all the lights in a classroom. I could turn off all the lights in bring in several floor lamps. But again, what happens when the rector walks in? In many schools, the teacher is not even given any personal freedom over how they can teach or discipline the children. I doubt they will be very understanding over the teacher's lighting preferences when it involves something a unsual as keep all the overhead lights off. the change needs to come from the highest levels, from both the adminstrators, and the architects, before the classrooms are actually built.
The best thing to do would be to create a new lighting for classroms. Patten it, sell the idea, and make a fortune. In the USA the kids spend about 4 hours in public school classroom so the problem here is not that bad. I spent many years woking in offices for govenment in buildings with floresent lighting for 8+ hours a day 5 to 6 days a week. But I never complained. I guess some people are just spoiled.
-- Pam posted in comment section on http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/01/22/are-the-new-light-bulbs-a-health-risk/ -- Katie April 18, 2007 posted in comment section on http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/02/yahoo_sees_the.html --Kathleen Showalter November 13, 2007 http://lowenergylampsinfo.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/fluorescent-lights-giving-pupils-headaches/ Fluorescent Lighting in Schools Found to Give Children Headaches: http://www.naturalnews.com/022431_public_schools_fluorescent_lights.html How much money are we spending on failing schools? If switching out the light helps even a small number of these students it is well worth it.
The PD is my primary paper where I live in 95448... Regarding lighting in public schools, I think this issue is on par with heating/cooling, cleanliness, outside facilities, desk ergonomics, student safety, technology, etc. in which school teachers and administrations simply are not qualified to evaluate these things. Maybe the few who give thought to these issues don't do much because they tire from beating their heads against the wall? It's kind of like one state's new education superintendent (think it was NC or SC) finding out that his school system was no longer teaching cursive writing and reading. He responded by demanding all schools to resume teaching cursive. Well...the education unions responded by saying this is fine but it will take several years to implement. When the superintendent asked why, he was told that the teachers themselves did not know how to read and write cursive, that they would need to be educated, and this takes time. I suspect administrators and teachers are simply not competent to evaluate lighting and other human interface issues in the school system. And even when they can, they then need to convince the taxpayers to fund the changes, and since the taxpayers also need to be educated as well, this takes time...
http://specialhappens.com/2012/10/1...-yet-its-in-our-schools-my-mini-soapbox-rant/ The UV radiation that leaks out of fluorescent tubes can cause eye ache for those who spend several hours under artificial lighting, especially if the tubes are not covered with diffusor panels. http://diffuserspecialist.com/blog/2013/07/22/better-lighting-in-classrooms-for-success. This is a problem that is being neglected in many schools because of poor design, and is not good for the children. Maybe parents need to get more involved and speak up before the school plans to construct a new building.
Remember the first segment of a Tom Hanks movie titled Joe Versus the Volcano? He had some type of job in a building with no windows and fluorescent lights which were driving him crazy...living in artificial light! Wonder what would happen in school today if a kid told a teacher the lights were bothering them? I suspect the kid would be SOL! I equally believe the teacher would be SOL when communicating this issue to administrators. I further suspect most children will be SOL if they communicated this issue to their parents. Many moons ago I remember my grade school rooms had one entire wall of the room in windows...wonderful natural light illuminated the rooms. Later going to a newly constructed high school, the rooms were void of windows relying solely on artificial lighting. College had very few windows. But...at the end of the day, on these types of issues, I suspect the bottom line is cost...
The great majority of people have no problems with fluorescent lights. It takes a long time to change schools' architecture.
And yet, we still have to have disabled parking spaces to accommodate handicapped people. Fluorescent lighting is just bad, and children are forced to be under them all day. The least the school should do is make the environment as pleasant as possible.
Design some anti-fluorescent eye glasses to wear in the school room or workplace. I always liked my ski goggles with the yellow lenses how they made everything appear clear and bright...maybe this would help kids stay awake...
Interesting thread. Just odds and ends: A lot of places in the US have had to change their lighting recently due to the federal law phasing out certain bulbs. My schools usually had fluorescent under those drop down vented looking things to direct the light down. The hallways had skylights/light tubes in them and weren't as bright as the classroom. Every school I went to had a wall of windows, so I am not sure that the lighting really was that relevant.
I'm not against newer schools being designed with more sources of outside light but if you're saying that readily available natural lite fluorescents wouldn't do the job just as well as LEDs I have to say that's nonsense. They cost a little more, but not as much as LED's and they're coming down every day as more and more people use them. Then again, so are LED's probably, and maybe they can be designed to use the same fixtures. You might be well advised to shop around the net a little. If you could find a way to light your school more naturally for less your principal might thank you. Hell, the school BOARD might notice that.
I know many people are just brushing this all off, but it is really a not a trivial thing for some people. Fluorescent lighting leaks out some UV radiation. This can result in eye ache for some people. If the fluorescent lighting is not covered by diffusor panels, my eyes start aching after 2 hours of being under them. It feels like snow blindness, which is really what it is. this is what I mean, they don't have diffusor panels. There should be some sort of building code regulation against this. Do we just expect everyone who doesn't like fluorescent lighting to find a job where they do not have to be under them?? That could be rather challenging. Especially with the government employing so many people, they need to start looking for new lighting solutions.
In our schools, the metal grid thingy worked as a diffuser in directing the lights down not out. They are not just tubes covered in a plastic sheet. I really do not like the more modern diffuser panels. I don't particularly like fluorescent tubes either. I once had to work in an office that had 4 inset fluorescent boxes with each one having 4 bulbs. 16 tubes in a 12 by 14 foot room was hideous. There was no way to position a computer screen to not have a glare on it. I am more particular now about lighting than I was in the past. I use 100 watt full spectrum corkscrew bulbs in most my lights now, but it has to be a particular one. I experimented with a lot of bulbs until I found the one that I like best, and then bought enough of that kind to replace all the bulbs under my control at home and work that will take as crew in bulb of that size.
I'm sure that if a student has diagnosed problems with fluorescents that accomodations would be made. It's rare. - - - Updated - - - Almost nobody has any problems with lighting in schools.
