RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The mixed-methods research for this study used the "Exploring Accreditation Priorities for Ecological Sustainability Survey" and qualitative interviews to uncover barriers to ascertain why the accreditation standards policies and procedures of AdvancED comprehensively ignore health and safety issues related to indoor air quality in the classroom.
PROBLEM
Problem Statement: Poor Air Quality in Schools
When last reported, many school buildings in the United States were old and in poor condition. Alexander, Lewis, and Education Statistics (2014 b) found evidence that 32% of public schools in the United States with permanent buildings were rated as being fair or in poor condition due to environmental challenges. Environmental factors influence reduced school condition rates as being unsatisfactory in 5-17% of permanent buildings and 10-28% of portable buildings. Among all public schools, data by Alexander and Lewis (2014) indicate that qualified professionals, between 2010 and 2014, performed inspections and evaluations in 80% of permanent public-school buildings. Fifty-three percent of reported schools needed to do repairs, renovations, or modernization to bring buildings into good condition.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there is no nationwide monitoring network that statistically measures valid samples of schools' indoor air quality. However, the collected data on the condition of public-school facilities' heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems rated as being very unsatisfactory (Indoor Air Quality | US EPA. 2017).
The interviews of external examiners and key stakeholders functioning at various junctures of the accreditation processes helped provide information regarding evaluation perspectives on AdvancED engagement (or lack of it) related to indoor air quality in the teaching spaces of its accredited schools. Two themes arose from the qualitative interview data analysis: (a) Barriers to healthy indoor environment and (b) Responsibility for addressing these barriers for monitoring air quality. The first theme contains four subthemes: (a) funding,(b) lack of training relating to indoor air quality,(c) standards and compliance regulations, and (d) unawareness about how air quality affects student learning/performance. The second theme (responsibility for monitoring air quality) had three sub-themes: (a) air quality as part of the accreditation process,(b) participants' level of involvement; and (c) Perceived need for more involvement and concern.
QUESTIONS
These questions were used as guidelines to elicit perspectives of ecological, social equity factors
What are the experiences of external examiners as they assess schools for academic quality?
What issues not on the evaluative forms, such as indoor air quality, come to mind as external examiners conduct their evaluations?
What results emerge from comparing the exploratory qualitative and quantitative data about external examiners' experiences with the outcome?
What works in accreditation bodies around safety and health that addresses indoor air quality?
To what extent do external examiners understand indoor air quality issues in educational assessments for accreditation?