Jump to main content.

IPM in Schools: Developing Local and Interstate Partnerships and Strategies for Implementation - Final Report

Edwin G. Rajotte, Professor of Entomology And Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
Lyn Garling, PAIPM Program Education Specialist
Penn State Integrated Pest Management Program

Introduction and Background

This project is one of two EPA-funded projects designed to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools. In addition to this project funded by Region III for Pennsylvania schools, there was a ‘sister’ project funded by Region V for Michigan Schools. Larry Swain of the Michigan Department of Agriculture was director. During the funding period we substantially collaborated with the Michigan project.

High pest populations in schools degrade the learning environment and can cause significant health threats or dangerous structural damage. Rodents associated with humans can transmit disease directly by contaminating food with their urine or feces or by biting people. These rodents can also transmit several diseases indirectly by way of fleas. Rodents also gnaw on electrical wire and fires can result (Pinto 1993). Termites may cause significant structural damage. Wasp stings are painful and may cause allergic reactions. Flies, gnats and ants can create annoyances and detract from the learning environment.

Asthma is increasing in the U.S. and this is reflected in the state level statistics in Pennsylvania. Data from Philadelphia show that death rates due to asthma are extraordinarily high (Lang and Polansky 1994). Cockroach infestations are implicated in increased asthma in inner cities. Studies in 8 eastern and mid-western cities show that cockroach allergens in children’s homes contributes significantly to the incidence of serious allergy conditions (Rosenstreich et al 1997). Further, the presence of cockroaches in schools can be a significant source of the allergens that contribute to asthmatic conditions (Sarpon et al. 1997). These are unacceptable conditions for our school children and other occupants and pest management programs are obviously needed.

On the other hand, pest management practices that rely heavily on pesticides are reactive rather than preventative and may also cause human health problems. Issues of poor indoor air quality, pesticide hypersensitivity, pesticide residues and childrens' heightened sensitivity or potential damage if pesticides are all cited in rationale for new legislation across the country. As common as pesticide use is, we know very little about relative quantities of what products are used and how safety in schools is assured. Incidents of pesticide poisoning are unevenly reported and difficult to interpret due to lack of consistency in reporting criteria and follow-through. Long-term effects of exposure to multiple pesticides, presumed to be higher in enclosed environments is also unknown (GAO 1999).

Our own surveys in Pennsylvania (1998 and 2001) showed that the majority of schools rely on the services of professional pest control companies both for information (73 - 79%) and to physically manage pests in the schools (60 - 86%). These surveys reveal that while most schools practice some forms of sanitation and other preventative measures, they do not have an IPM policy (78%). The majority (71%) had not had any inquiries about pest management from the public.

Some contradictions are evident in these surveys: 70% of school districts in the 2001 survey said they utilize IPM however, 59% also said that when pesticides are used, all buildings are treated the same. This confusion about what IPM is and isn’t creates a barrier to implementation. Interestingly, although the Pennsylvania Association of School Board Associations has designed a model IPM policy for the schools, very few school districts are, aware of it, nor are using it.

A barrier is the IPM is one of many concerns of school superintendents, principals and facilities managers. Moreover, teachers and students are mostly unaware of their role in keeping pest populations low by using proper sanitation.

In other states where surveys have been done, it was documented that the vast majority of schools rely on pesticides for their pest management programs (PA, IL, NY, MN, surveys). Implementing IPM in schools is a pesticide risk reduction strategy targeted at reducing pesticide exposure of children and other school occupants. It has also been documented that IPM programs can both control pests successfully and reduce pesticide use in schools while containing costs (GAO, 1999). Additionally, when pesticides must be used, IPM practices dictate least-toxic products and formulations be used.

Implementation of IPM in schools varies by state and/or community because some jurisdictions have laws mandating IPM, while others don’t; surveys suggest that many school administrators/facilities managers are not familiar with what is actually involved in IPM; IPM implementation in schools requires a team, school community awareness and cooperation; and school environments and communities vary with regard to location, community, financial base, attitudes, culture and physical conditions.

Many states have recently promulgated regulations that affect the use of pesticides in school environments and promote the use of IPM. In Pennsylvania a school IPM bill was passed during the time, of the present PESP project. As of January 2003, the state requires all schools to:

  1. provide notification to parents, students and teachers in advance of pesticide applications (PA Act 36) and
  2. requires schools to adopt an IPM plan for school buildings and grounds (PA Act 35).

The bill also places responsibilities on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to assist schools in the development, planning and preparation of the IPM plan. Specifically, the department will maintain a Hypersensitivity Registry to assist in the notification of students, and employees who are especially sensitive to pesticides and designate an IPM coordinator within the department to assist schools in adopting and administering IPM plans.

IPM for school grounds is a process for achieving long-term, environmentally sound pest suppression through the use of a wide variety of technological and management practices.
Control strategies in an IPM program include structural and procedural modifications that reduce the food, water, harborage, and access used by pests. The emphasis is on least toxic and least environmentally disruptive practices to solve pest problems. Conventional pesticides are used only when needed.

The Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program aids in the coordination of IPM implementation and education throughout the state. School IPM-related activities of the PA IPM Program include:

In addition, Pennsylvania is well positioned to implement school IPM since the PA IPM program is a functional collaboration between the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (the state’s pesticide regulatory agency) and Penn State University; there is a Memorandum of Understanding among key state agencies to collaborate in school IPM implementation; an ad hoc IPM in schools working group; and a 111-page implementation guide.

In addition to new state regulations requiring and IPM plan for managing pests on school grounds, the state also has new. regulations affecting the teaching of IPM in the classroom. Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that has articulated a K-12 education standard for IPM as part of the nine interconnected subject areas within the Academic Standards in Environment and Ecology. The standards contain content-specific benchmarks to be achieved by students by grades 4,7,10 and 12. This provides the PAIPM program with the opportunity to work with schools to link their grounds IPM activities with the students’ curriculum.

Project Activities

Given this history and situation we proposed a project to develop local and interstate partnerships and strategies to more firmly embed IPM in the school environment. The benefit of partnering with a school IPM program in another state (Michigan) was to blend our strengths to the benefit of both programs. In Michigan, the school IPM program had made great strides in implementing IPM to manage pests in inner city Detroit schools. In addition, they were successful in connecting school IPM programs with IPM efforts in surrounding residential communities through student-centered projects. The strength in the Pennsylvania program was implementing IPM in the K-12 curriculum and designing innovative informal educational offerings.

The specific objectives for the Pennsylvania grant was to:

  1. Organize a state-level school IPM advisory body and build other partnerships for IPM implementation.
  2. Establish a partnership with a school IPM program in Region V.
  3. Create a template for teamwork
  4. Operationalize the use of the Pennsylvania School IPM manual.
  5. Develop creative educational delivery methods
Objective 1. Organize a state-level school IPM advisory body and build other partnerships for IPM implementation.

The core advisory body in this effort is the Pennsylvania IPM Advisory Committee that is appointed by the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. While this committee deals with all IPM issues including agriculture, forestry and urban, it has members who are involved in the school system. Discussions about school IPM occur at the majority of its quarterly meetings. One IPM Advisory Committee member is a member of the state’s Board of Education and has been invaluable in inserting IPM into the Environment and Ecology Academic Standards. Another member is an administrator in the Department of Health that has purview over school, health issues.

Another key partnership is with PASBO. The Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials (PASBO) is a professional association whose members are engaged in or provide products and services for school business management. Currently, PASBO is made up of more than 2,500 members who are primarily employed full time by public or private schools in Pennsylvania. PASBO programs and services promote the highest standards of school business management practices, member recognition, professional growth and the effective use of educational resources.

The association strives to continually provide professional and personal development opportunities to the membership through the workshop program, the annual conference and exhibits, specialty events and informative publications. The association also disseminates state legislative and executive branch information to school business officials. The partnership between PAIPM and PASBO was beneficial because it provided educational and informational access to most school facilities managers in the state. PAIPM provided school IPM manuals and presented long-distance video educational sessions. I one session, more than 250 attendees from eight sites across the state attended a video conference program to educate their members on new legislation that requires schools in Pennsylvania to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) plans. The video conference included presentations on school IPM legislation by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA), Penn State, the Pennsylvania Pest Management Association and school officials. Penn State Cooperative Extension was a partner in the effort, and cooperative extension agents were invited to attend the video conference to begin collaborative relationship with PASBO and PDA in helping schools become educated about IPM.

In order to ensure that IPM guidelines were official parts of school policy, we partnered with the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA). The PSBA is a nonprofit statewide association of public school boards, pledged to the highest ideals of local lay leadership for the public schools of the commonwealth. PSBA was the first school boards association established in the United States, founded in 1895. The mission of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association is to serve local school boards and advocate public education. PAIPM worked with PSBA to develop a model IPM policy that was then adopted by the vast majority of school districts in the state.

Objective 2.  Establish a partnership with a school IPM program in Region V.

We adopted a school IPM implementation model from a program of the Michigan Department of Agriculture for inner city schools. Our collaborator in that program is Larry Swain. We had several productive interactions

We are continuing to work with Mr. Swain’s program even after the termination of this grant.

Beyond the Region V collaboration we have also been active nationally, promoting and helping to guide school IPM policy. We have been invited to several meetings in Washington either by USEPA or a non-governmental organization.

In 2003 we organized a major school IPM symposium held as part of the National Symposium in Indianapolis. This symposium covered school and community IPM programs from across the country. A highlight was ‘Roach Patrol’ team from Cass Technical High School in Detroit. These high school students presented a description of their program in a scientific meeting format.

Objective 3. Create a template for teamwork

Based on all of our past experiences we created a test partnership in Philadelphia to link school IPM with IPM in the greater community. The Philadelphia School and Community IPM Partnership (PSCIP) was formed to reduce health risks associated with pests and pesticides and to make indoor and outdoor environments safer through the widespread adoption of IPM methods. PSCIP has been networking to generate partnerships promoting School IPM and Community IPM through K-12 environmental education, and community outreach. Philadelphia partners come from community groups, pest control companies, agencies, churches, school district administration, activists; business associations etc. Products of these collaborations include teacher trainings, student-run service learning projects, community health fairs, publicity, and urban greening/clean-up projects.
PSCIP Members include:

Based on our success in Philadelphia we also began a similar effort in Pittsburgh. Working with the Pittsburgh school district’s IPM director, Maria Moio, we provide IPM information and training. Recently, the Pittsburgh School district was awarded the prestigious “IPM Star Certification” from the The IPM Institute. IPM STAR certification is a rigorous process that includes an on-site inspection by an independent professional trained in integrated pest management, or IPM. IPM is a kid-safe, economical and scientific, step-wise approach to pest management. To become IPM STAR certified, the inspector examines the history of pest problems, the condition of buildings and grounds as well as any pesticides used in the past year. The school must have an IPM program in place to guide administrators and staff as they respond to pest issues, including - preventing and avoiding problems before they occur.

Objective 4. Operationalize the use of the Pennsylvania School IPM manual

During the time of this project we revised “IPM for Pennsylvania Public Schools: A how- to manual” and distributed it to all 501 school districts. This manual can be downloaded at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schoolnm/contents.htm

The revised edition of the manual contains sections on mosquito and tick IPM. More references have been added, and some content has been replaced with material that conforms to the new IPM legislation. The manual also includes chapters on suggestions for setting up an IPM program in schools and developing an IPM policy and a sample policy from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

Additionally, the manual contains a listing of commonly encountered pests in and around schools as well as information on the biology, identification and management of various types of pests such as ants, cockroaches, flies, fleas, head lice, silverfish, termites, and yellow jackets.

The goal of PA IPM and the various collaborators on the manual was to produce a user- friendly manual that would encourage schools to adopt an IPM program and to provide suggestions so that each school can decrease or manage pest problems.

In addition to USEPA partially underwriting this work, collaborators on the manual included Penn State College of Agriculture, Departments of Entomology and Agronomy; Pennsylvania Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Health; Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials; and the Pennsylvania Pest Management Association.

The revision was distributed as part of the present USEPA project and served as a core teaching document for IPM in schools. The manual has been adopted in part by several other states also.

Objective 5. Develop creative educational delivery methods

During this project we developed a novel IPM educational program and expanded the range of another. The new program was done in partnership with the Whitaker Center for Science and Arts located in Harrisburg, PA. The center developed a theatrical performance geared towards elementary students to teach the basic principles of IPM. IPM, or Integrated Pest Management, is a safe, economical and scientific, step-wise approach to pest management. The Big Science Theatre (BST) of Whitaker Center, the region’s only live-action science theater, featured the show daily in Harsco Science Center.

The Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency underwrote “The Good, The Bad, and The Bug-ly”. Characters in the skit include Splint Eatwood, a reformed termite, Stan the barkeep, and Citizens of Decayed Log, who are the audience. The show’s interactive, science-oriented performance entertained audiences while educating them. The show was performed by Whitaker Center professional resident science theatre acting company, The Whitaker Center is a popular destination for field trips from public schools in central Pennsylvania. Over the 6 months of multiple daily performances, several thousand school students participated in the play. ‘The Good, The Bad and The is now a permanent part of the Whitaker Center repertoire.

Also during this USEPA funded project we were able to expand the activities of our traveling IPM educational exhibit “The BugMobile.” The BugMobile! is a traveling, interactive exhibit designed to increase public awareness on the topics of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and minimizing the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. The display is provided by the Pennsylvania IPM Program (PA IPM), which is a collaboration between Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Seed funding for The BugMobile! was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, the college of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State University and the Pennsylvania IPM Program.

The BugMobile! is available, for use by not-for-profit educational organizations. The BugMobile! is a fun and innovative way to attract the public to a learning opportunity. It is equipped with audio-visual equipment so the car (a 1970 Volkswagen painted orange with black spots to mimic a ladybug) can engage passers-by in conversation. The person who is the “Voice of The BugMobile! can see, hear and talk to passers-by but cannot be seen However, The BugMobile! is more than just a gimmick; it has a specific set of IPM messages. It is literally and figuratively a “vehicle” for attracting people into a larger display in which audiences can learn more about IPM. http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/thebugmobile.html

Literature Cited

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.