Acoustics Bulletin Jul-Aug 2011 - Institute of Acoustics

INSTITUTE
AFFAIRS
Stolen equipment
Description Location SRL no. Make Type serial no.
Any information gratefully received
Sound level
analyser
Altrincham 532 Brüel & Kjær 2260 2370478
SRL Technical Services Ltd unfortunately had one of their sound level
meters stolen in April 2011. If any member has received an
unorthodox approach and been offered some or all of this equipment,
please would they contact Ryan Arbabi in 0161-929 5585 or email
rarbabi@soundresearch.co.uk. SRL’s northern office is at Lynnfield
House, Church Street, Altrincham, Cheshire WA14 4DZ.
Preamplifier Altrincham 537 Brüel & Kjær ZG-0026 2770
Microphone Altrincham 550 Brüel & Kjær 4189 2616485
Calibrator Altrincham 536 Brüel & Kjær 4231 2327011
James Report under fire for failure
IOA regrets failure to recognise the importance of acoustics
The Institute of Acoustics has strongly criticised the Review of
Education Capital led by Sebastian James for its failure to recognise the
importance of good classroom acoustics. Prof Trevor Cox, the President,
said that acoustics barely rated a mention in the 105-page report, which is
absolutely incredible given its crucial role in the classroom. It may sound
obvious to most people, but pupils has to be able to hear what their
teachers were saying in order to learn, and teachers must not be obliged
to put their health at risk by raising their voices to make themselves heard.
There was a wealth of scientific evidence to show that external and
internal noise affected children’s performance in literacy, numeracy and
memory tasks, and that these effects could be reduced by good acoustical
design. Children with special needs were more seriously affected by noise
than others, as the impact on their performance in spelling and reading was
three times that of the impact on other children.
The Institute had hoped that the James Report would recognise the
importance of acoustics somewhere in its findings so its failure to do so
was extremely worrying. As a result the Department for Education was
now being asked to give parents and teachers a firm and unequivocal
assurance that acoustics would continue to remain a priority in schools.
The Institute has been campaigning since the start of the year to ensure
that the current review of Building Regulations by the Department for
Communities and Local Government does not lead to a reduction of
acoustical design standards in schools.
It is particularly concerned that section E4 of the regulations, which
requires schools to be ‘suitable” acoustically, may be scrapped or watered
down without being replaced by a statutory mechanism that carried
equivalent weight.
In February 2011 Prof Cox warned Communities and Local Government
Minister Andrew Stunell that failure to construct schools that were not fit
for purpose could result in ‘disastrous consequences’ for future
generations of schoolchildren.
Classrooms with poor acoustics
Children suffer an adverse impact on memory, reading and numeracy skills
This is a précis of the article by Emily Dugan which was published in the
Independent on Sunday on 22 May 2011.
According to a new study, children who are taught in noisy classrooms with
poor acoustics suffer academically. While classroom chatter is unavoidable,
many teachers and students suffer unnecessarily high levels of noise because
badly designed classrooms exacerbate the problem, or because external
noise sources from aircraft and road traffic are inadequately reduced by the
building envelope.
Government proposals to relax the standards to which school acoustics are
considered in new or refurbished buildings when new school locations are
selected could adversely affect pupils.
The Institute of Acoustics and Institute of Education study took two groups
of secondary-school students and exposed them to high and low levels of
noise while lessons were in progress. In the tests, half of each class listened
to background noise at the equivalent of 50dB(A) through headphones while
they worked, and the other half-class did the same with a headphones level
of 70dB(A). Their positions were reversed after a week.
The working memory, numeracy and reading skills of 14- to 16-year-olds in
noisy conditions were no better than 11- to 13-year-olds’ performances in
quiet conditions. Previous studies had shown in primary-school-age children
that poor acoustical conditions adversely affected performances, but older
pupils were also affected in the new study: this first compelling evidence of
the effects.
Dr Daniel Connolly of the Institute of Education, says that the study showed
poor acoustics to be very bad for learning. In many tasks, higher noise levels
took the older age group back to the achievement levels of the younger age
group. Although there would always be a certain amount of noise in a school,
leaving students in a room with poor acoustics and high background noise,
or both, could only make matters considerably worse.
Education Department officials are reconsidering the requirement that
schools are ‘suitable’ in terms of acoustics (BB93) as a part of the coalition
government’s headlong gallop in pursuit of large cuts in public spending.
The head teacher of Hounslow Heath Infant School, which is under the final
approach path to Heathrow airport is Kathryn Harper-Quinn. She has direct
experience of how important it is to protect a school from external noise.
She says is it something the government should worry about, because
significant problems will result from a failure to take school acoustics into
account. Her school had taken several years to achieve adequate insulation
against the noise of incessant aircraft over-flights to the extent that they were
no longer a distraction, but she still felt there was a long way to go.
A great improvement in pupil concentration had been apparent since the
school building had been properly insulated, but it would have been far better
to build schools where external noise was not an issue in the first place.
Environmental Protection UK sponsors the initiative. Their Mary Stevens said
that there was a big drive for deregulation at the moment, but the loss of
acoustical planning requirements for schools would mean the loss of valuable
protection from noise, an this would have a serious impact on pupils and
teachers alike.
16 Acoustics Bulletin July/August 2011