Appropriate School Facilities for Students With Speech-Language-Hearing Disorders

Introduction

Adequate working conditions and facilities in schools for speech-language pathologists and audiologists have always been acknowledged as essential for creating an optimal assessment and/or learning environment for the child, but the quality of work settings and equipment varies widely in schools around the country. Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 ( IDEA '97) increased school administrators' awareness of the importance of providing adequate learning environments for children with disabilities, including those with speech-language-hearing disorders. In addition, the Americans With Disabilities Act ( ADA, 1990) required that facilities where services are provided—including both therapy rooms and classrooms—accommodate the special needs of the children in attendance. In some cases, this resulted in greatly improved facilities. In many other instances, however, awareness was not translated into action. The reasons for this lack of action include overpopulation of some schools, which has contributed to competition for workspace. Many older schools were not designed with dedicated rooms or adequate accommodations within the classroom and have been difficult to convert structurally. Additionally, fiscal constraints have prevented improvements in school working conditions ( Neidecker & Blosser, 2001). Whatever the reason, apathy is common among school administrators and school boards regarding inadequate assessment/intervention environments and equipment for speech-language and hearing services.

According to the Ohio study, Availability of Therapists to Work in Ohio Schools ( Legislative Office of Education Oversight, 1999), speech-language pathologists listed lack of designated space to provide treatment as a definite drawback to working in the school setting. This was corroborated in the ASHA 2000 Schools Survey ( ASHA, 2000a): 35.2% of the 2,133 speech-language pathologist respondents listed “inadequate work space and facilities” as one of the school SLP's greatest challenges. Results of the 2001 ASHA Survey on Critical Issues and Member Needs, a Web-based survey of ASHA members ( ASHA, 2001a) indicated that lack of adequate workspace/environment and of equipment were areas of significant concern in the school setting.

In 1966, the ASHA Housing Subcommittee on Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools wrote the document Recommendations for Housing of Speech Services in the Schools ( ASHA, 1967). The current document not only updates the original, but also expands the scope of those recommendations to comply with IDEA '97. This document focuses on various learning environments, including the speech-language pathology retreatment room, hearing screening room, and the regular education classroom.

This document is intended as a reference for speech-language pathologists, audiologists, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, architects, and building contractors. It contains minimum requirements for creating optimal learning and assessment environments for students and is designed to be a substantiating reference for use when building a new school, redesigning an already existing structure, and/or advocating for improvement of facility work conditions. The ultimate goal of this document is to be a reference guide for providing a work setting, assessment, and learning environment that will contribute to the overall success of students.

Return to Top

Speech-Language Pathology Room, Equipment, and Furniture

Speech-language pathologists must have appropriate facilities to meet program goals and student needs. Service areas used for special education classrooms must meet the same standards as regular education classrooms. IDEA '97 and ADA require that facilities where services are provided accommodate the special needs of the children in attendance. IDEA '97 states that “any construction of new facilities or alteration of existing facilities…must comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities” (§ 300.756). Also, each state has rules and regulations that address facilities for personnel serving students with disabilities. Some local school districts and professional organizations have developed recommendations for the physical facilities and equipment necessary to operate programs effectively. It is important for speech-language pathologists working in the schools to be aware of these local and state requirements and/or recommendations so that they can advocate for appropriate facilities.

These suggestions should be considered when determining appropriate facility needs:

Return to Top

Return to Top

Confidentiality

The ASHA Code of Ethics (see Appendix I), individual state licensure boards, and state boards of education mandate that speech-language pathologists and audiologists maintain confidentiality of student/client information. Furthermore, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA, 1974) regulations have very specific recordkeeping requirements for educational agencies and institutions.

IDEA '97 includes strong language protecting the confidentiality of student records:

1. Federal Regulation 34CFR § 300.572, Safeguards, states that:

   “Each participating agency shall protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information at collection, storage, disclosure, and destruction stages.”

2. Federal Regulation 34CFR § 300.126, Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information, states that:

   “Each State must have on file in detail the policies and procedures that the State has undertaken to ensure protection of the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information collected, used, or maintained under Part B of the Act.” ( IDEA '97)

It is important that each speech-language pathologist have a facility that permits privacy suitable for private consultation, including a telephone, in an area where scheduling, parent contacts, and confidential conversations regarding students can be completed relatively free from distractions. The area should be for the exclusive use of the speech-language pathologist when he or she is scheduled to be in the building. Space should be provided for record storage, including a locking filing cabinet with a key.

Return to Top

Acoustics in Classrooms and Other Learning Environments

Guidelines and requirements for classroom construction and applicable facilities requirements are a state issue, not a federal issue. In some states, the guidelines are uniform; however, many states utilize the guidelines as a basic blueprint, with construction decisions made by each school sector or district and submitted for approval to the state's department of education (B. Hayes, personal communication, September 2001). A few states do not have specific facilities requirements and work on an individual basis within each district. Nevertheless, each state's requirements regarding standardized classroom size, materials, construction requirements, lighting, and the like are found in information regarding capital construction and/or building requirements available from that state's department of education. The responsibility of the communication disorders professionals for knowledge and understanding in this area is suggested in the ASHA literature. In fact, ASHA's Guidelines for the Roles and Responsibilities of the School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist ( ASHA, 2002b) and Guidelines for Audiology Service Provision in and for Schools ( ASHA, 2002c) suggest that involvement in leadership initiatives, advocacy, and community and professional partnerships is becoming increasingly important. A most common and significant problem, and one in which audiologists and speech-language pathologists have vested interest, is the lack of guidelines and information regarding acoustical requirements for classrooms. Inferior acoustics and lack of information regarding acoustics are a widespread problem for classrooms in the United States (Weaver-Dunne, 2000). Currently, the United States is engaged in the single largest school construction phase in its history, yet many architects are not trained in architectural acoustics, and administrators and school board members also do not possess the knowledge necessary to address adequate architectural acoustics in classrooms ( Crandall & Smaldino, 2001).

New standards for acoustical requirements for the classroom have been a long time in development. Through the Rehabilitation Act ( 1973), section 502, the Access Board, an independent federal agency, was established to promote accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Based on the ADA ( 1990), the Access Board has developed architectural design accessibility guidelines that have set a precedent. Noisy classrooms present architectural barriers to children and adults in much the same way as physical obstacles prohibit access by the physically challenged. Widespread problems with inferior classroom acoustics may in part be due to the fact that auditory information and the processing of auditory information are invisible. Studies conducted over the last 25 years estimated that 75% of the school day is spent engaged in listening activities, yet substantial research linking poor academic performance and noisy academic environments has largely been ignored ( Hubble-Dahlquist, 1998). Because audiologists and speech-language pathologists possess the knowledge and skills needed to understand and apply acoustical information relative to communication opportunities and hearing/communication skills, it is both appropriate and important for them to provide information and recommendations toward correcting and improving classroom acoustics.

It is easy to conclude that acoustic support is needed when students present with hearing loss; generally, the need for specialized devices is considered an acceptable expense for those students. Unrecognized by the standard hearing screening testing procedures, however, are the children who pass the standard hearing sensitivity test and yet present with slight hearing loss and/or auditory processing problems. In addition, many children develop transient middle ear infections that result in conductive hearing loss before, during, and after the infectious period of the—often multiple—episode(s). Research has estimated that as many as 15% of primary grade students may fail puretone screenings at 15 dB and/or may fail an immittance screening on any given day as a result of intermittent transient middle ear infections.

A student must receive and process auditory signals to perform well—inadequate acoustical information often results in poor academic performance and poor social/self-esteem skills, thereby lowering the potential for successful academic careers and life skills. Because of poor acoustics in classrooms, children may develop self-confidence issues as they see others understanding and responding to information to which they cannot respond. Poor self-esteem may affect students' cognitive potentials and perhaps lead toward concomitant behavior and/or management issues ( Coalition for Classroom Acoustics, 1998). ASHA's Position Statement and Guidelines on Acoustics in the Educational Settings ( ASHA, 1995) addressed the increasing prevalence of hearing loss in children and young adults, 2additionally stating that children with mild hearing loss were more at risk for psychosocial problems and poor academic success than their normal hearing peers. In addition to those children identified with hearing loss and perceptual difficulties, there exists a group of at-risk children for whom good acoustic environments are essential. According to the Coalition for Classroom Acoustics, this at-risk group includes children younger than age 13 (immature neurology), children with articulation disorders, and children with language-learning disorders, as well as children with learning disabilities, and children who are non-native English speakers. In addition to the identified groups, 8–10% of the overall student population, irrespective of age, may have significant learning problems affected by poor acoustical environments ( Coalition for Classroom Acoustics, 1998).

Sound and noise control in the classroom and other learning environments is both a science and an art. When renovations or new construction are being planned, the importance of good classroom acoustics and the potential negative effects of poor acoustics on speech perception and learning need to be considered. In these instances, consultation with an audiologist and an expert in acoustical design should be encouraged. For more specific information on specific acoustical modifications, consult comprehensive resources such as ANSI ( 2002); ASHA ( 1995); Crandell and Smaldino ( 2000, 2001), Florida Department of Education ( 1995a), and Sieben, Gold, Sieben, and Ermann ( 2000).

In addition to the modifications and accommodations made in the classroom and school environment, the speech-language pathologist and audiologist can provide assistance by stimulating interest in developing a school-wide plan to reduce noise and reverberation ( Florida Department of Education, 1995a, p. 51). This strategy would involve students, teachers, administrators, support staff, and perhaps even parents, in identifying noise sources that interfere with learning and listening and then developing a plan to decrease noise.

Audiologists have the knowledge and skills to measure classroom noise and reverberation levels, given the appropriate tools. A systematic approach to measuring classroom acoustics is detailed in Crandell and Smaldino ( 2001). This type of evaluative data may be requested by a student study team and/or an IEP team if there are concerns about a particular student with hearing loss or other auditory learning problems. Ultimately, the findings could result in specific modifications or accommodations being included in the student's IEP or 504 plan.

Although there are no requirements for schools to adopt a universal standard for acoustics in classrooms and other learning environments, ASHA ( 1995) developed physical classroom acoustic standards as follows:

• Classroom reverberation time (RT) should not exceed 0.4 seconds.

• Signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) should be no lower than +15 dB.

• Ambient noise in an empty classroom (including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, other noises consistently present, and outside noises) should be no louder than 30–35 dBA.

In response to the Access Board's request for information recording classroom acoustics, the Acoustics Society of America formed a task force followed by the ANSI S12 Working Group to study the need for and develop a standard for acoustics in classrooms and other learning environments. In June 2002, ANSI approved the standard drafted by this group as ANSI Standard S12.60-2002, Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools ( ANSI, 2002).

In addition to modifying the physical properties of the classroom, other postconstruction opportunities for improving sound-field equalization should be implemented. Reducing excessive noise and reverberation may require strategies and materials for altering the physical characteristics of rooms, and/or purchasing sound equalization systems for rooms. Whatever strategies are employed, audiologists, acoustical architects, and/or acoustical experts should be utilized in order to provide a successful listening environment.

Acoustical treatments and modifications in the following areas should be considered in efforts to obtain optimal acoustical environments for all students and the professionals who serve them. Many of these recommendations can be achieved by working with the classroom teacher, the school principal, the custodian, or the district's facilities department.

Return to Top

Return to Top

Hearing Screening Room

School-age children with even minimal hearing loss are at risk for academic, communication, and social-emotional difficulties ( Bess et al., 1998; Niskar et al., 1998; Tharpe & Bess, 1991). To ensure that an efficient, effective hearing screening program is implemented, the following factors should be considered: test environment, screening and supervisory personnel, equipment, contributions of school personnel, schedule for periodic screening, test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and follow-up procedures ( Roeser, 1995).

According to ASHA's Guidelines for Audiologic Screening ( 1996), the expected outcome is to identify children at risk for hearing loss that may adversely affect education, health, development, and communication. The procedures indicate both setting and equipment specifications. Screenings conducted in the school environment should meet the following guidelines.

1. Hearing screenings should be conducted in a quiet environment with minimal visual and auditory distractions.

2. Ambient noise levels for hearing screening environments should not exceed those listed below when measured with a sound level meter with octave band filters centered on the screening frequencies. It is important to note that these levels were derived from ANSI 1991 standards for pure tone threshold testing and have been adjusted for the 20 dB HL screening level. (Earlier documents indicated an allowable ambient noise level of 41.5 at 500 Hz, and therefore 500 Hz is included in some hearing screening programs.)

   Figure 1.

   

3. Audiometers must meet the current ANSI requirements for either limited-range or narrow-range audiometers.

4. Audiometers must be calibrated to current ANSI specifications at least annually.

5. A protocol should be established that requires a daily listening check to rule out distortion, crosstalk, and itermittancy, and to determine that no defects exist in major components.

The environment where the hearing screenings are performed is critical. To achieve positive outcomes, it is important that the hearing screening environment be well lighted; adequate in size to accommodate screening personnel, students, and equipment; well ventilated; and have adequate electrical outlets and low ambient noise levels ( Florida Department of Education, 1995a; Roeser, 1995). Advance planning may help in obtaining the best available screening site in the school environment. Support should be requested from the school administration to identify a suitable hearing screening environment. The greatest risk associated with excessive ambient noise levels is false-positive identifications. Subsequent overreferral for rescreening and/or follow-up challenges the integrity of the screening program. Increasing stimulus intensity is not an acceptable measure to offset excessive ambient noise levels. The most desirable hearing screening environment is located away from intrusive external and internal noise sources (e.g., high traffic areas, gymnasium, music room, restrooms, mechanical equipment, and HVAC equipment).

Alternatives that may be considered are sound enclosures that are similar to music practice rooms or a mobile hearing screening van. Often the mobile screening units can be obtained through grant funding; however, the school district must also consider the maintenance of the unit as a recurring expense.

Presentations

Develop presentations with your audience in mind. Your terminology and presentation style should be appropriate for your audience. Use of audiovisual aids can focus additional emphasis on existing needs.

Consider giving presentations at a regularly scheduled meeting of some of the following groups:

• Administration

• School board

• Parent-teacher organization

• Union members

• Community organizations (e.g. Lions Club, Optimists Club, Jaycees)

Urge parents and teachers to attend such meetings when appropriate.

Return to Top

Funding Sources

Monies can be found in a variety of places. Consider the following sources:

• Speech-language or audiology budget

• Discretionary funds

• Regular education monies

• Monies slotted for building improvements

• Grants

• Monies received from third party billing (Medicaid reimbursement)

• Parent-teacher organizations

• Increased monies via IDEA

Return to Top

Strategies

The following specific strategies have been used successfully in endeavors to improve facilities including the office/treatment room, classroom acoustics, materials and testing equipment, and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) equipment.

Return to Top

Speech-Language Pathology Room

• Ask the building principal or assistant principal to observe you for a day so he or she can directly experience the difficulties caused by an inadequate room.

• Make your need for permanent space apparent to others. In one situation, the building principal found the SLP an office after the SLP used a conference room next to the principal's office.

• Rely on the IEP as a tactic for identifying the need for an appropriate room as a part of the least restrictive environment for students.

• Point out the need for privacy when making phone calls and holding conferences regarding students.

• If small rooms do not have good ventilation and lighting, provide the administration with OSHA and other legal documents that address your specific needs and describe appropriate environments.

• Hold parent and/or teacher conferences in your office so that other team members are aware of the learning environment in which students must receive therapy. Encourage them to contact administration regarding their own concerns about the room.

• Indicate to the administration that you would like to transfer to another building because of the inadequacies at your current placement.

Return to Top

Classroom Acoustics

• When you present information regarding students with conductive and/or sensorineural hearing losses, play a tape recording that demonstrates what it is like to hear with such losses.

• Have members of the audience wear ear plugs while they listen to you speak without a microphone. A tape playing in the background can provide auditory distraction.

• Include research information about the importance of amplification for students with ear infections as well as hearing losses, learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, and attention problems, and the relationship of these conditions to the development of phonological awareness and reading.

• Create a graph indicating sound level measurements in classrooms when they are empty, between classes, and once class has begun. Compare data from rooms that have better acoustics (e.g., a carpeted library) with those that do not (e.g., the classroom that is next to the band room). If possible, ask your local university to send a graduate student in audiology to take the measurements for you.

• Demonstrate the value of sound field classroom amplification systems by having a system set up while you give your presentation.

• Provide charts and/or graphs based on current research that indicate the positive effect of sound field classroom amplification systems on the reading and other standardized test scores of children in the various grades.

• Begin a project in which you keep pre- and post-test data to document the effectiveness of the sound field systems.

• Provide a copy of “Classroom Acoustics: A Resource for Creating Learning Environments With Desirable Listening Conditions,” a publication of the technical committee on architectural acoustics of the Acoustical Society of America ( http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/qc/booklet.htm).

Return to Top

Evaluation and Instructional Materials and Equipment

To provide adequate services to students, speech-language pathologists and audiologists must have appropriate equipment and materials, including computers with Internet hook-up, tape recorders, calculators, textbooks, and standard office equipment. The following strategies can be used to demonstrate your need for adequate equipment and materials:

• Provide information regarding the need to use up-to-date tests and norms for evaluating the district's students. Tests need to be current to reflect changes in demographics. They should also be nondiscriminatory in terms of age, race, language, and socioeconomic status.

• Share the titles and copyright dates for the tests you are currently using.

• Point out the normative information and indicate whether the sample reflects the population of your district.

Return to Top

AAC Equipment

IDEA '97 requires districts to consider if students require the use of supplementary aids for achieving success in the academic setting. Furthermore, speech-language pathologists are bound by the ASHA Code of Ethics to recommend appropriate intervention and equipment that will result in the student achieving the most effective communication possible. The following strategies are appropriate:

• Indicate your current materials/equipment and needs.

• Cite specific legal documentation from IDEA and ADA.

• Emphasize that it is mandatory for districts to provide equipment that has been cited in a student's IEP.

Return to Top

Funding

• Compare the size of your budget with that of a classroom teacher. Point out discrepancies in the budget amount, the number of students at varying grade levels, and the variety of communication disorders (compared to “subject” areas).

• If your district is involved with third-party billing for Medicaid reimbursement, point out the amount of money that the speech-language-pathology program has provided for the district and request reimbursement. If the district agrees to let your department use some of this money, be sure to have this documented in writing.

Summary of Sound Field Amplification Efficacy Studies

Improvement in Academic Achievement

Table 8.

Improvement in Speech Recognition Skills

Table 9.

Improvement in Students' Attending and Learning Behaviors

Table 10.

Other Benefits

Table 11.

Return to Top

References

Allen, L. (1993). Promoting the usefulness of classroom amplification equipment. Educational Audiology Monograph, 3, 32–34.

Allen, L., & Patton, D. (1990, November). Effects of sound field amplification on students' on-task behavior. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Convention, Seattle, WA.

Benafield, N. (1990). The effects of sound field amplification on the attending behaviors of speech and language-delayed preschool children Unpublished master's thesis. University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Berg, F., Bateman, R., & Viehweg, S. (1989, November). Sound field FM amplification in junior high school classrooms. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language- Hearing Association Convention, St. Louis, MO.

Bitner, B., Prelock, P., Ellis, C., & Tzanis, E. (1996, November). Group sound field amplification and attending behaviors in the classroom setting. Presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Convention, Seattle, WA.

Blair, J., Myrup, C., & Viehweg, S. (1989). Comparison of the effectiveness of hard-of-hearing children using three types of amplification. Educational Audiology Monograph, 1, 48–55.

Carlson-Smith, C., & Nelson, N. (1995, March). Classroom amplification, middle ear pathology, and classroom success. Paper presented at the Michigan Speech-Language-Hearing Association annual conference, Bellaire, MI.

Crandell, C. (1993). Speech recognition in noise by children with minimal degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 14(3), 210–216.

Crandell, C. (1996). Effects of sound field FM amplification on the speech perception of ESL children. Educational Audiology Monograph, 4, 1–5.

Crandell, C., & Bess, F. (1987, November). Sound-field amplification in the classroom setting. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, New Orleans.

Crandell, C., Holmes, A., Flexer, C., & Payne, M. (1998). Effects of sound field FM amplification on the speech recognition of listeners with cochlear implants. Journal of Educational Audiology, 6, 21–27.

Crandell, C., Smaldino, J., & Flexer, C. (1995). Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications. San Diego: Singular Publishing.

Flexer, C. (1989). Turn on sound: An odyssey of sound field amplification. Educational Audiology Assn. Newsletter, 5(5), 6–7.

Flexer, C. (1992). Classroom public address systems. In M. Ross (Ed.), FM auditory training systems: Characteristics, selection, and use (pp. 189–209). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Flexer, C., Millin, J., & Brown, L. (1990). Children with developmental disabilities: The effect of sound field amplification on word identification. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 177–182.

Flexer, C., Richards, C., & Buie, C. (1993, April). Sound field amplification for regular kindergarten and first grade classrooms: A longitudinal study of fluctuating hearing loss and pupil performance. Paper presented at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Phoenix, AZ.

Gilman, L., & Danzer, V. (1989, November). Use of FM sound field amplification in regular classrooms. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, St. Louis, MO.

Howell, P. (1996). Effects of sound-field amplification on test scores of normally hearing children in a regular education classroom Manuscript submitted for publication..

Jones, J., Berg, F., & Viehweg, S. (1989). Listening of kindergarten students under close, distant, and sound field FM amplification conditions. Educational Audiology Monograph, 1, 56–65.

Nelson, D., & Schmidt, M. (1993). Take anything else, but leave my classroom FM system! Perspectives, 12(1), 8–11.

Neuss, D., Blair, J., & Viehweg, S. (1991). Sound field amplification: Does it improve word recognition in a background of noise for students with minimal hearing impairments? Educational Audiology Monograph, 2, 43–52.

Osborn, J., VonderEmbse, D., & Graves, L. (1989). Development of a model program using sound field amplification for prevention of auditory-based learning disabilities Unpublished study. Ottawa, OH: Putnam County Office of Education.

Palmer, C. (1996, April). Quantification of the ecobehavioral impact of a sound field system. Poster session presented at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Salt Lake City, UT.

Poissant, S., Brackett, D., & Maxon, A. (1998). Cochlear implant users listening in noise: Benefits of sound field amplification. Educational Audiology Review, 15(1), 3.

Prendergast, S. (1999, June). The effects of sound field amplification system configuration, grade, sex, and hearing status on speech discrimination ability of primary aged children. Paper presented at the Educational Audiology Association conference, Lake Geneva, WI.

Ray, H. (1992). Summary of MARRS adoption data validated in 1992. Norris City, OH: Wabash & Ohio Valley Special Education District.

Ray, H., Sarff, L., & Glassford, F. (1984). Sound field amplification: An innovative educational intervention for mainstreamed learning disabled students. The Directive Teacher, 6(2), 18–20.

Rosenberg, G. (1998). Relocatable classrooms: Acoustical modifications or FM sound field classroom amplification? Journal of Educational Audiology, 6, 9–13.

Rosenberg, G., Blake-Rahter, P., & Heavner, J. (1995, November). Enhancing listening and learning environments with FM sound field classroom amplification. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, Orlando, FL.

Rosenberg, G., Blake-Rahter, P., Heavner, J., Allen, L., Redmond, B., Phillips, J., & Stigers, K. (1999). Improving classroom acoustics (ICA): A three-year FM sound field classroom amplification study. Journal of Educational Audiology, 7, 8–28.

Sarff, L. (1981). An innovative use of free-field amplification in classrooms. In R. Roeser & M. Downs (Eds.), Auditory disorders in school children (pp. 263–272). New York: Thieme-Stratton.

Schermer, D. (1991). Briggs sound amplified classroom study. Unpublished study, Briggs Elementary School, Maquoketa, IA.

Smaldino, J., Green, J., & Nelson, P. (1997). The effects of sound field amplification on fine auditory discrimination. Educational Audiology Monograph, 5, 29–31.

Valente, M. (1998). Effects of sound field amplification on academic performance in college students. Journal of Educational Audiology, 6, 14–20.

Zabel, H., & Tabor, M. (1993). Effects of classroom amplification on spelling performance of elementary school children. Educational Audiology Monograph, 3, 5–9.

Summary of Draft Introduction and Scope

This draft standard provides acoustical performance criteria and accompanying design guidelines intended to ensure good speech communication among students and teachers in learning spaces. The performance criteria set upper limits for background noise level and reverberation time (RT). To ensure that noise limits are not exceeded, adequate sound isolation between classrooms and adjacent spaces will be needed. Recommended design guidelines for this noise isolation are provided. The standard will apply to new and renovated learning spaces. It is intended for indoor spaces where small or large groups of students assemble for educational purposes, or where speech or auditory therapies and related services are provided.

Return to Top

Summary of Draft Definitions

Acoustical performance specifications are defined in this standard by (a) maximum allowable A-weighted levels of background noise and (b) maximum allowable RTs for learning spaces. Also provided are recommended design guidelines for the minimum sound transmission class (STC) for common partitions separating classrooms from adjacent spaces (such as other classrooms and corridors), STC for external walls, and minimum values of sound and impact isolation provided by floor/ceiling assemblies.

Return to Top

Return to Top

Summary of Draft Acoustic Performance Criteria

The maximum total steady-state background noise level for unoccupied learning spaces will be the following:

1. Spaces whose primary intent is instruction: 35 dBA ^[3] , ^[4]

2. Ancillary learning spaces (such as hallways, cafeteria): 40 dBA

Nelson: Epilogue 393

The maximum average reverberation time in unoccupied learning spaces (average of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz measures) will be the following:

1. Rooms with volume less than 283 m³ (10,000 ft³) 0.6 s

2. Rooms with volumes larger than 283 m³ (but less than 566 m³) 0.7 s

Intermittent intrusive noises 5 dB higher than these recommended levels are allowable if they do not occur for more than 5 minutes per hour.

Return to Top

Summary of Draft Informative Annexes

Informative annexes will be attached to the standard when complete. These will include:

• a detailed rationale for the proposed standard;

• design guidelines for achieving recommended noise and reverberation levels;

• key characteristics of quiet heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems and information sources for designing and installing quiet HVAC systems;and

• methods for validating background noise levels and RTs.

References

Allen, I. (1995). The effect sound field amplification has on teacher vocal abuse problems. Paper presented at the Educational Audiology Association Summer Conference, Lake Lure, NC, June 1993.

Crandall, C., Smaldino, J., & Flexer, C. (1995). Speech perception in specific populations. In C. Crandall, J. Smaldino, & C. Flexer (Eds.), Sound field FM amplification (pp. 49–65). San Diego: Singular Publishing.

Lubman, D., & Sutherland, I. (November, 1999). Good classroom acoustics are a good investment for America. Paper presented at the 138th Annual Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Columbus, OH.

Ross, M. (1992). Room acoustics and speech perception. In M. Ross (Ed.), FM auditory training systems: Characteristics, selection & use (pp. 40–41). Timonium, MD: York Press.