Improving Indoor Air Quality

Literally years ago, as a trustee around February of 2023, I noticed that the CO2 monitor testing proposal that was ratified had a sneaky line about not beginning the test until after we're back to pre-Covid ventilation levels (i.e. no longer bringing in more fresh air), which might never happen. I was the one to push the issue, but I was told that I shouldn't be the one to put the motion forward because I had just proposed encouraging people to mask, so I was the seconder on that motion to re-write that motion. 

Shop Canadian here!

The motion was just to try out having CO2 monitors in three schools as a test case. The monitors wouldn't be visible to people, but hidden in the vents, remotely monitored by board staff, and that's a line they wouldn't budge on. If they were visible, then teachers could use them to decide if windows should be opened for a bit to air out the room or the HEPA filter actually plugged in! Maybe they were worried about it causing a panic. Who knows! Before I left, which was before that motion was going to be argued about and voted on, I pleaded with the chair to try to add in a line that the reporting of the monitors must report per classroom or at least a range, not just give an average per school. She didn't seem to think it was important. 

It's so clearly important. The school average could show 700 ppm, which is pretty good, and miss that some rooms are at 500, and others at 2,000. As a teacher with my own monitor, I was in a classroom that regularly hit over 2,000 - every day - while other rooms were much better. My room also barely got any heat in the winter. It was an ongoing problem for decades that never really got fully addressed. 

The bureaucracy around all this is part of the reason I left. I argued in social media at the time and since that it would be SO MUCH FASTER to crowdsource the data. We just need one parent of one kid in each classroom to send a monitor to school with them and track it. Alternatively, one monitor could be rotated to test rooms on different days to look for problems. But that never got any traction. Part of the problem is that kids sometimes get in trouble for having CO2 monitors on their desk. Parents don't want this to fall on their kids, and I get that. It's a shame more teachers won't take up the cause. There are much cheaper, faster, and easier solutions that could happen today, but will be bogged down by more committees, motions, re-writes, and reports. 

In September 2023, they formed a committee that, in part, advised looking into the use of CR boxes which are significantly cheaper and quieter than HEPA units, especially ones that use computer fans.

Jump to two years after it all started, and the board is being celebrated yesterday as the first to ratify its first clean indoor air policy last October 2024, "probably the first in the province". (Can't we check if that's true instead of qualifying it?) The new board policy is on page 63 of this Committee of the Whole agenda. In a nutshell it says the board is committed to following building standards and CSA standards, making sure there are protocols in place to prevent problems with indoor air by expanding their maintenance program and monitoring and responding to malfunctioning equipment, using air purifiers "in a manner consistent with Ministry of Education guidelines," continuing to add CO2 sensors to classrooms to ensure timely response to anomalies, lower CO2 signal levels, invest in air quality infrastructure, provide specialized ventilation for specific programs (science, tech, which is already in place), monitor air quality tech, and make policy available to everyone. 

Here's the thing, meeting the ministry guidelines means following whatever Ford says, which isn't going to be enough. There's a caveat, "It is not within this policy to address the concerns of individuals who report adverse health effects and/or symptoms of discomfort even when generally accepted industry standards are met," so if you don't like that the CO2 is 2,000 ppm, that's not their problem because, in the most recent report I could find (2023), ASHRAE advises "If CO2 levels exceed recommended limits (typically outside air level +750 ppm set point or 1100-2000 ppm) for 90 minutes, further recording should be implemented." Their ratings are still to take out noxious odours, not to mitigate viral infection. We should be aiming for under 800 ppm and then advise opening a window. ASHRAE also advise 3-6 air changes per hour (ACH). Joey Fox is quoted in the article saying we should have 9 ACH in high schools when accounting for room density, but that doesn't matter if that's not what the ASHRAE advises. The board can hit just 3 ACH and still be following this policy. 

ASHRAE also advises there be HEPA or UV machines in each classroom, but that's for their advanced indoor air quality guidance, not the minimum. I'm quite certain the board will follow the minimum guidance possible. Despite that the board committee wanted to do something to get CR boxes in the mix, none of that language made it to the final policy that was voted on. As far as I know, they're still not allowed in schools.   

So, I love when it's reported that other people are still in the game to try to reduce illness in our schools. Since leaving Twitter, it's less apparent to me. And it's nice that indoor air quality concerns in schools are still in the news, absolutely! But when will there be CO2 monitors in each classroom, and what will actually be done if they hit over 2,000 ppm? And will ASHRAE ever change minimum guidance in classrooms to reflect illness mitigation??