Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Indoor Air Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Ithaca board to allow air purifiers in classrooms to reduce illness and chronic absenteeism
Summary
Parents and community members told the Ithaca City School District board on Feb. 25 to permit air purifiers in classrooms to curb respiratory illness and chronic absenteeism, citing higher absence rates for students of color and students with disabilities and studies linking improved ventilation to better health and learning.
Parents and other community members told the Ithaca City School District Board of Education on Feb. 25 that the district should allow air purifiers in classrooms to reduce respiratory illness and chronic absenteeism.
The speakers, most of them parents of students at South Hill Elementary, said district chronic absenteeism rose to 25 percent in 2024 from 16 percent in 2019 and that rates are higher for students with disabilities (36 percent), economically disadvantaged students (nearly 40 percent), and Black students (47 percent). They cited studies and professional guidance — including EPA reviews and ASHRAE guidance — linking improved ventilation and filtration to better student and staff health and learning, and asked the board to permit classroom air purifiers and to consider a pilot at South Hill.
Parents described individual illnesses and school disruptions. Casey McGrath said his second grader developed pneumonia after contracting the flu at school and missed 10 days, including family events. Several speakers cited a district average ventilation rate equivalent to about 3 air changes per hour (about 10 liters per second per person), and they contrasted that with ASHRAE recommendations of roughly 6 air changes per hour for infectious disease control; speakers also referenced studies showing fewer illness-related absences and improved academic performance with higher ventilation. Eric Colletti, citing district health-benefits budgets, argued improved indoor air could lower health-care and substitute-teacher costs and said a portable purifier in every classroom was estimated to cost just over $200,000 with annual filter costs under $20,000.
Board members responded after public comment. Multiple board members said they support the idea in principle and noted the facilities committee has already reviewed the issue. One board member said the district has been monitoring indoor air quality at South Hill and is actively investigating options. Other board members raised logistical concerns including electrical capacity in older buildings, potential fire-code limits on circuits, noise or sensory impacts for some students, and the need for careful policy language should the board change a prohibition. One member suggested using a pilot at a single school to inform a districtwide approach, and another said, absent new information, the board should move the question to a formal vote soon.
The district did not take a formal vote on the matter at the Feb. 25 meeting. Instead, board members described continued study through the facilities committee, recognition of equity concerns across schools, and interest in returning to the full board with a concrete policy proposal or vote.
Speakers quoted in this report spoke during the public-comment portion of the Feb. 25 meeting unless otherwise noted. Direct quotes in this article are attributed to speakers who identified themselves on the record.
"My name is Laura Vineyard, and I'm a parent of a child at South Hill Elementary, and I'm here to speak in support of the PTA's air purifier program," Laura Vineyard said during public comment, noting district absenteeism figures and the disproportionate impact on students of color and students with disabilities.
"He missed school, I missed work, and we have both missed out on planned vacation, family, and social activities," parent Casey McGrath said, describing his son's illness and urging action.
Board members said facilities staff and the facilities committee have been studying ventilation and that dashboards and some monitoring exist at South Hill; however the board did not adopt any policy change during the meeting. The issue may return to the board for a vote after the facilities committee provides recommendations.
Ending: The public comments and board responses on Feb. 25 left the district with a clearly stated community request and a plan for further study; board members signaled support for a pilot and asked facilities staff to refine options and policy language before any formal change is brought back for a vote.
