teaching and learning environment quality teaching and learning environment quality managing student...

Teaching and Teaching and Learning Learning

Environment Environment QualityQuality

managing student achievement risk

The fundamental mandate of K-12 organizations is to optimize student outcomes as measured by:

Grade point averagesGraduation ratesPost secondary enrollment rates

Student outcome is influenced by:- Gender - Parental support- Socio-economic conditions - Race and ethnicity- Early childhood learning - Inspirational school

culture- Class size - Curriculum- Facility conditions - Teacher

qualifications- Other

The MissionThe Mission

In 2005, a review of the literature

After reviewing over 400 papers, the research reveals:

The preponderance of evidence shows that facility conditions have an impact on student performance outcomes

Studies vary in the magnitude of the impact facilities have on student outcomes

Typically, the facility effect is in the range of 5-10 percent

The First StepThe First Step

The TOP four factors found to have the highest impact on student achievement, in rank order are:

1.Thermal comfort (temperature control)

2.Indoor air quality (ventilation control)

3.Visual comfort (lighting)

4.Acoustics (sound control)

The First StepThe First Step

In 2006, analysis of Canadian data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

The analysis was based on findings in the years 2000 and 2003

The Canadian data includes evidence from over 1,000 school, 20,000 students, and over 1,000 Principals

Canadian ResearchCanadian Research

Constructing an indexConstructing an index

Three questions were asked about facility conditions:

Is your school’s capacity to provide instruction hindered by a shortage or inadequacy of any of the following:

1) school buildings and grounds?

2) heating/cooling and lighting systems?

3) instructional space?


One key finding was that Principals perceived a 26% deterioration in facility

conditions from 2000 to 2003

2000 2003

Declining Conditions

Student morale and commitment Student morale and commitment measuresmeasures

Set 1: How much do you agree with the following statements? (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

1. Students enjoy being in school

2. Students work with enthusiasm

3. Students take pride in this school

4. Students value academic achievement

5. Students are cooperative and respectful

6. Students value the education they can receive in this school

7. Students do their best to learn as much as possible.

Teacher morale and commitment Teacher morale and commitment measuresmeasures

Set 2: How much do you agree with the following statements? (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

1. The morale of teachers in this school is high

2. Teachers work with enthusiasm

3. Teachers take pride in this school

4. Teachers value academic achievement

Student-related factors affecting achievementStudent-related factors affecting achievement

Set 3: In your school, to what extent is the learning of students hindered by…? (Not at all; Very little; To some extent; A lot)

1. Student absenteeism

2. Disruptions of classes by students

3. Students skipping classes

4. Students lacking respect for teachers

5. Student use of alcohol or illegal drugs

6. Students intimidating or bullying other students

Teacher-related factors affecting Teacher-related factors affecting achievementachievement

Set 4: In your school, to what extent is the learning of students hindered by…? (Not at all; Very little; To some extent; A lot)

1. Teachers’ low expectations of students

2. Poor student-teacher relations

3. Teachers not meeting individual students’ needs

4. Teacher absenteeism

5. Staff resisting change

6. Teachers being too strict with students

7. Students not being encouraged to achieve full potential


D is ag re e S tro n g ly A g re e

Bottom RankedFacilities

Student Morale

Top RankedFacilities 28.8%3.1%

8.7%16.6%

AveragedResponses

For all 24 Student and Teacher morale factors, Principals in Top

Ranked Facilities consistently had a more positive perception, while

Principals in Bottom Ranked Facilities had a more negative

perception


Teacher Achievement

27%Bronze

Silver

Gold

Platinum

Facility Ran

king

27%

31%

42%

For all 24 Student and Teacher achievement factors, Principals in Platinum

facilities consistently showed a significantly better perception, while all

other levels showed lower and inconsistent results

1. No known method for translating this basic reality into a measurable practice that can be implemented at the local level

2. No known method for determining the level at which facility conditions are a hindrance to student outcomes

3. Lack of clarity in determining where should school divisions direct their capital for the optimum learning results

The Next StepThe Next Step

Facility Condition MeasurementFacility Condition Measurement

What it is, and what it shows

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

0%

100%

75%

50%

25%

Individual schools

ElementarySchools

MiddleSchools

HighSchools

FCI LimitationsFCI Limitations

FCI can only tell you information about the building as compared to itselfFCI is about “restoring a building component to their as-built condition”, and does not incorporate upgrading components to meet changes in demandBasic FCI design incorporates the combined impact of the lifecycle renewal of building components and known building deficiencies – stated as a percentage of the current replacement valueThere is an absence of substantive research on how this FCI percentage should be interpreted in the k-12 sector

The FCI DisconnectThe FCI Disconnect

While FCI can be a relative assessment of facility conditions, it offers nothing tangible about the learning environment

While Principals are well positioned to assess the learning environment, they can only provide a perception facility conditions

Both require close examination for proper application at the local level

Putting Pieces TogetherPutting Pieces Together

The Principals Assessment of School Survey (PASS)

Expanded PISA physical conditions

Physical condition questions

Painting, graffiti Roof leak and related damage Heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting Noise issues Cleaning Interior finishes Social class

PISA learning environment questions

1. What is the state of school facilities?

2. What are the “learning environment” conditions in the schools?

3. The potential to calibrate ‘critical systems’ FCI and PASS into a new benchmark that can significantly enhance learning environment management processes at the local level

The Power of PASSThe Power of PASS

N ot at A l l

Ver y L i ttl e

N ot at A l lVer y L i ttl e

T he D egree to W hich FacilityC onditions H inder Teachingand Learning Effectiveness

Based on the PASS Scale

N ot at A l l

Ver y L i ttl e

Making a Link?Making a Link?

Cri

tical S

yste

ms F

CI

Cri

tical S

yste

ms F

CI

BenchmarksBenchmarks

Future School Facility AssessmentFuture School Facility Assessment

Pedagogical Functionality:

Schools facilities must provide structures that support the teaching and learning process. On this account, the literature indicates that the top four structural features of schools that impact student achievement include: - thermal comfort, - indoor air quality, - lighting, - acoustical control.

Programmatic Suitability:

Schools should provide facilities that support the delivery of curricular programmes. This dimension indicates that facilities must be adequate to support programme delivery (e.g. science laboratories, fitness facilities, etc.)


Cosmetic Appropriateness:

Schools should provide aesthetics that support the dignity of educational purpose. The cosmetic condition of schools has an undeniable symbolic function that sends important messages about the deemed importance of the educational work (e.g. graffiti removal, paint condition, landscaping, etc.)


Participant Wellness:

Schools must provide healthy and safe environments for all in attendance. Teaching and learning involve challenging tasks that cannot be efficiently or effectively accomplished when surrounded by concerns about personal health or safety (e.g. asbestos removal, fire code compliance, risk management, etc.)


Prairie Valley School Division No. 208 (PVSD), located near Regina, Saskatchewan

38 schools, one administration building, and 8,100 students

In 2005 we started to shift facility management planning from ‘best practices in property management’ to ‘teaching and learning environment quality’

Concurrently, our Board made the commitment to reinvest all facility-related savings back into teaching and learning environment quality (savings must be guaranteed where possible)

A Practical ApplicationA Practical Application

Aggregate facility-related savings (energy,

maintenance, accommodation right-sizing, etc) have been used to support $24-million in capital funding for full-scale renewal of mechanical and electrical systems over a 7-year implementation period (energy was only 1/3rd of the total savings)

A further $35-million has been included in the annual capital budgets for the same period to renew other areas like building envelope, interior finishes, roofing, and health and safety measures

Our combined capital investment will be around $20 sq/ft from savings and a further $30 sq/ft from annual capital budgets bring our FCI to under 15%


It is expected that this combined investment will allow PVSD to achieve a high quality teaching and learning environment that will not put student achievement at risk

Through the regular use of the measurement instruments being produced as a result of our work with Dr. Roberts, we will establish and maintain a clear set performance standards for facility conditions

These standards will then drive our annual capital planning process


The foundation of our ability to quickly shift from ‘best practices in property management’ to ‘teaching and learning environment quality’ is built on five cornerstones:

1. A fully populated capital asset management system database (Fame)

2. New assessment tools intended to prevent facility conditions from hindering the quality of the teaching and learning environment (Dr. Roberts instruments)

3. Engagement of Principals in measuring and managing customer satisfaction

4. The ability to leverage ALL facility-related savings into capital funding (the annual savings are matched to the annual debenture payments over a 20-year term)

5. A capacity-building strategy


This strategic approach to managing facility conditions based on the quality of the teaching and learning environment offers the following values to my department:

It elevates the strategic importance of facilities as an essential element in achieving our Divisions student achievement goals

It gives me a seat at the academic table as a contributing team member and enhances our goal alignment

It increases my access to funding

It gives my department higher visibility with our Trustees

It adds significant clarity to the role of managing facilities

A Positive, more Integrated FutureA Positive, more Integrated Future

teaching and learning environment quality teaching and learning environment quality managing student...

Documents

learning of students

step slide

individual students

student outcomes

student morale

mission slide

potential slide

sector slide