Teaching and Learning Environment Quality Teaching and Learning Environment Quality managing student achievement risk

The fundamental mandate of K-12 organizations is to optimize student outcomes as measured by: Grade point averages Graduation rates Post 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 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 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 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 Research

Constructing an index Three questions were asked about facility conditions: Is your schools 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?

Canadian Research One key finding was that Principals perceived a 26% deterioration in facility conditions from 2000 to 2003

Student morale and commitment measures 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 measures 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 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 achievement 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

Canadian Research 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

Canadian Research 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 Step

Facility Condition Measurement What it is, and what it shows Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

FCI Limitations FCI can only tell you information about the building as compared to itself FCI is about restoring a building component to their as-built condition, and does not incorporate upgrading components to meet changes in demand Basic 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 value There is an absence of substantive research on how this FCI percentage should be interpreted in the k-12 sector

The 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 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 PASS

Making a Link? Critical Systems FCI Benchmarks

Future 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.) Future School Facility Assessment

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.) Future School Facility Assessment

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.) Future School Facility Assessment

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 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 1/3 rd 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% A Practical Application

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 A Practical Application

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 A Practical Application

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 Future