Rigorous research shows that exposure to heat, airborne pollutants, and excessive noise can harm K–12 academic performance. In a new analysis, I estimate how mitigating these exposures could affect lifetime earnings outcomes and find the benefits could be substantial, particularly when multiplied across cohorts of students and affected schools.
To explore the question, I take results from five causal studies on school environmental exposures and convert them into lifetime earnings outcomes using the Urban Institute’s Social Genome Model (SGM). Previous analysis suggests SGM estimates tend to fall within, but on the lower end of, results from the limited causal evidence on the effect of childhood interventions on earnings. This means my projections should be viewed as a conservative estimate, or floor, of the potential benefits of reducing harmful environmental exposures for a national cohort of students.
Overall, I find that even modest mitigation strategies can yield positive outcomes. School districts and states considering strategies such as air filters, increased insulation, or improved heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems can consider these estimates the minimum potential benefit of an intervention.
Assessing the effects of environmental exposure on lifetime earnings
All five studies I model use quasi-experimental methods to isolate the effects of environmental exposure. For example, estimates of the impact of heat on PSAT outcomes rely on random variation in local weather conditions, while estimates of the impact of traffic pollution compare schools that are consistently downwind of traffic pollution to nearby schools that don’t experience the same pollution exposure.
Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Aarons 2026, Heissel et al. 2019, Hollingsworth et al. 2020, Park et al. 2020, Persico and Venator 2018.
Note: ASVAB = Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery; PIAT = Peabody Individual Achievement Test ; SD = standard deviation; SGM = Social Genome Model.
For each study, I model how lifetime outcomes would change if the average US student were no longer exposed to this environmental stressor. Of course, in the real world, exposure is not evenly distributed; for example, people from low-income households are more likely to live near toxic release sites than those from higher-income households. These differences are not built into the SGM simulation, but the model does allow me to break down results by demographics, revealing important differences in adult outcomes across groups.
Next, I analyze how mitigating these effects could influence lifetime income, in present discounted value, for the average K–12 student. I find that even modest reductions in harmful environmental exposures can yield lifetime earnings benefits.
For example, reducing heat exposure in early adolescence by just 1 degree Fahrenheit is projected to increase expected lifetime income by at least $267 (0.03 percent), with larger percentage gains for Black and Hispanic people (0.06 percent and 0.04 percent). And eliminating exposure to an additional 10 kilograms of lifetime airborne lead emissions is associated with a lifetime earnings increase of at least $3,942 (0.39 percent), while avoiding exposure to a toxic release site is associated with a lifetime earnings increase of at least $1,544 (0.19 percent).
Source: Urban Institute analysis of five empiral studies (Aarons 2026, Heissel et al. 2019, Hollingsworth et al. 2020, Park et al. 2020, Persico and Venator 2018) using the Social Genome Model.
Note: Lifetime earnings presented in present discounted value.
Lessons for school districts and states
Although these returns are modest per student, they add up quickly across entire schools and student cohorts. For example, a typical elementary school serving about 480 students (80 students per grade for a school serving kindergarten through 5th grade), could generate at least $3.15 million dollars of present-discounted value of lifetime income across 10 cohorts by eliminating high levels of airborne lead exposure alone (80 students per class × 10 cohorts × $3,942 average effect per student).
School building mitigation efforts are also likely to narrow outcome gaps, particularly for low-income students. Not only are low-income students more likely to be exposed to these stressors, but they also attend schools that are more likely to be in poor condition, more likely to be portable or temporary buildings, and less likely to receive capital investments relative to more affluent areas of their state (PDF).
Of course, reducing children’s exposure to environmental stressors shouldn’t be viewed through just a cost-benefit lens—the benefits of improved health and cognitive function are important on their own. But these SGM estimates show that environmental mitigation can generate meaningful monetary returns, which may strengthen the case for state and local investment. For example, indoor air filter implementation and mold remediation and ventilation improvement projects have a higher benefit-to-cost ratio relative to other educational investments (e.g., reductions in class size). And more broadly, there is evidence that school capital projects increase academic outcomes.
State and local policymakers can take action by assessing options for reducing environmental hazards around schools, such as through improved HVAC and filter systems, increased building insulation, and monitoring of nearby pollution sources, such as industrial facilities and data centers.
Together, these findings underscore that the quality and location of the school building, in addition to what happens inside the building, can shape student outcomes long beyond childhood.
