(REVISED) CELE ORGANISING FRAMEWORK ON EVALUATING QUALITY IN
EDUCATIONAL SPACES 1
Background and purpose of the Framework
The following statement summarises the conclusions of experts participating in three OECD meetings in 2005-06 on “Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities”:
“All individuals have a right to a quality educational facility, a physical space that supports multiple and diverse teaching and learning programmes and pedagogies, including current technologies; one that demonstrates optimal, cost-effective building performance and operation over time; one that respects and is in harmony with the environment; and one that encourages social participation, providing a healthy, comfortable, safe, secure and stimulating setting for its occupants.”
Governments have a responsibility to invest in quality educational spaces because the physical environment can have a significant impact on the present and future professional, educational and personal lives of students, staff and their communities. This Framework highlights the important role of quality spaces in increasing access and equity for all in education, improving educational effectiveness and promoting acquisition of key competencies, and optimising building performance and operation.
The school is an essential component of a diverse and complex knowledge economy, and it must respond to its changing needs and demands. In essence, we evaluate educational spaces to measure their responsiveness to these changing needs and demands. Are governments prepared to challenge traditional paradigms of school design, construction and operation – and invest in new ones – in order to improve their schools to meet the needs of tomorrow’s knowledge economy?
The objective of the CELE Organising Framework for Evaluating Quality in Educational Spaces and the accompanying matrix is to demonstrate the inter-relationships over a facility’s life cycle between the broad policy issues that both shape and respond to quality issues in educational spaces; current conceptions of what defines “quality” in educational spaces; the demands and benefits of the space to its numerous users and other stakeholders; and appropriate methods that can be used to evaluate different aspects of quality.
This Framework is not intended to serve as a checklist. It is a multi-dimensional, policy-oriented tool that will be used in this OECD project to help discern the most appropriate means by which to evaluate different aspects of quality in educational spaces in different countries at local, regional and/or national levels. It can also be used by individual countries to assess “quality” in terms of their own goals and priorities.
Components of the Framework
The Framework consists of two dimensions. The first dimension addresses how “quality” is defined within the context of policy issues. The second dimension presents important characteristics in
1

the process of evaluating aspects of quality. A matrix is provided at the end of this document to illustrate the relationships between these dimensions.
Dimension 1: Link between educational policy and educational spaces, and principles and criteria of quality
The following three issues reflect the contribution of quality educational spaces to key education policy areas.

Increase access and equity to education . The space provides equitable access to learning as stated in the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (United
Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002) and the six “Education for
All” goals in “The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All, Meeting Our Collective
Commitments” (UNESCO, 2000), offering adequate space capacity in relation to demand.
This issue acknowledges the fundamental right of all individuals to access an educational institution, and addresses the problems of over-occupancy, which can compromise building users’ comfort and safety, and under occupancy, which can have a detrimental effect on school ethos.

Improve educational effectiveness . The space is agile, supporting diverse teaching and learning programmes and pedagogies. It also promotes acquisition of key competencies by facilitating the interaction of individuals in socially heterogeneous groups; empowering individuals to manage their lives in meaningful and responsible ways by exercising control over their learning environment; and providing an environment that encourages students to use tools interactively – both socio-cultural and physical tools such as computers and elements of the school itself. These three “key competences”, which are necessary for individuals to lead an overall successful life and for society to face the challenges of the present and the future, are defined in Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society
(Rychen and Salganik, 2003). This report is the product of the OECD’s interdisciplinary and policy-oriented research programme, DeSeCo Definition and Selection of Competencies:
Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations.

Optimise building performance, operation and cost-effectiveness.
The space satisfies the performance and operational requirements of a school and demonstrates long-term costeffectiveness.
Within the context of these issues, the Framework defines five principles of quality and a number of criteria for defining quality.

The space is fit for purpose (relating to the benefit of the space to its users).

Accessibility to all . The space is accessible for all young people and adults. It makes provision for students with special needs, including vulnerable and economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities; it is accessible for pedestrians, bicycles, goods vehicles, private cars, public transport and safety services; and the structure is easy to understand for its occupants and offers sufficient points of recognition.
1

Student capacity . There are sufficient spaces in which students learn to adequately support the current and projected student enrolment.
2


Learning spaces . Learning spaces are agile, accommodating a range of educational programmes and pedagogies; multi-purpose; age-appropriate; of sufficient size to allow students and teachers to work, move around in the classroom and work with others; and have sufficient storage capacity to support the spaces in which student learn. Learning spaces are classrooms, the library or media centre, science and technology laboratories, and workshops and studios for performance, visual and industrial arts, and sports grounds and athletic facilities.

Comfortable spaces.
Quality of furniture and lighting; level of internal and external noise; levels of maintenance; and temperature and humidity control in the space do not hinder the learning process.

New technologies . The space can host current information technologies.

Social spaces . The space provides a variety of indoor and outdoor areas where students and staff can meet with friends and colleagues, sit quietly or engage in recreational activities.

Staff spaces. The space makes adequate provision for workspace for teachers and school administration.

Community use. The space is accessible to the community for use during or after-school hours, and monitored to ensure the safety and security of staff and students.

The space is symbolic, visually pleasing and offers learning opportunities.

Symbolic . The space, through its design, displays unique character and meaning to the school and its occupants, for example through its display of local architectural styles, use of innovative design solutions to accommodate new educational programmes, or incorporation of new technologies.

Aesthetic appeal . The school and school site are visually pleasing.

Educational resource . Aspects of the space offer learning opportunities for students.

The space is fit for purpose (relating to the space's operational layout).

Cost-effectiveness.
The initial construction cost for a school, and the life cycle costs for capital improvements and maintenance are cost effective.

Management and operation systems.
The space is effectively and holistically managed and operated ( i.e. through the use of flexible management systems by trained operators).

Feedback loops . There is provision for feedback loops between the building brief and the completed building, and the space evaluation and the design brief.

Design selection . There is a competitive design selection process, involving users.

The space provides a healthy and safe environment.
3


Potable water.
Drinkable water is available to staff and students in an adequate number of locations.

Sanitary facilities.
The space has clean, functioning toilets, which are available in sufficient number and locations, and separate facilities for males and females.

Fire safety.
The space has a functional fire alarm system and meets standards for the flammability of materials and egress for building occupants.

Emergency lighting. The space has a functional emergency lighting system.

Secure design.
The space’s structure protects the physical security of the building’s occupants.

Building system, material and condition. No building system (mechanical, electrical, plumbing or structural), material ( e.g. asbestos, lead in paint) or condition ( e.g. pervasive roof leaks) presents a health or safety hazard to its occupants.

Vehicular and pedestrian traffic . Vehicle pick-up and drop-off zones, parking and pedestrian paths provide safe traffic patterns.

The space is environmentally sustainable.

Site planning.
The space demonstrates environmentally responsible site planning.

Sustainable systems.
The space demonstrates effective and efficient use of water, energy, recycling, waste management and daylighting.

Sustainable methods and materials.
The space demonstrates use of sustainable construction methods and building materials.
Dimension 2: The evaluation process
When undertaking an evaluation of one or a number of the abovementioned aspects of quality, three aspects must be considered. Two additional essential provisos of any evaluation process are that evaluation results must feed back into the building cycle and seek to raise awareness among those who can influence funding and improve design, namely officials and decision-makers.

Point in the school’s life cycle at which it is evaluated . Evaluation should be a continual process to ensure that the space remains fit for purpose throughout its life, as educational and building performance and operational requirements evolve and change. Quality should therefore be evaluated throughout the building’s life cycle:

Pre-design phase.

Design phase.

Construction phase.

12 to 24 months after initial occupation.
4

 Any stage during the building’s use, following, for example, major renovation or restructuring work or a major change in educational policy affecting educational infrastructure.

The stakeholder(s) evaluating quality . Involving the school community in the design, evaluation and use of the space can promote a sense of belonging and ownership among users of the space. Current qualitative approaches have focused on asking the users of the space – students, staff, parents, community members – how the space meets their educational, social, professional and other needs. Thus, the users of the space feel empowered to influence their physical environment. However, other tools have been used by other stakeholders, including asset and facilities managers, researchers and educationalists.

Tool(s) used to evaluate quality . Although a number of methods have been used in different countries to evaluate quality in educational spaces, this OECD project will focus on four specific tools. These tools are not mutually exclusive, but will serve different purposes for different stakeholder groups in different countries.
 “Facility Performance Evaluation”.
FPE is a methodology that uses a variety of qualitative research tools (e.g. walkthroughs, focus groups, interviews, observation) to assess the educational effectiveness and building and operational performance of a facility over the life cycle, from the perspective of the building’s users and other key stakeholders in the procurement process. A pilot FPE project will be developed as part of this activity involving a small number of interested countries.

Educational statistics and indicators. Inventories have been developed in several countries as monitoring instruments for data collection on cost control, user satisfaction, etc. Although preparatory work by the OECD in 15 countries indicates that much nationallevel data exists, there is a dearth of international data on educational spaces. A small meeting involving the 15 CELE country contacts and other interested experts will take place in early 2007 to identify areas of common interest to countries.

International school-level questionnaires. The OECD Programme on International
Student Assessment (PISA), involving 15-year-old students, offers many possibilities for illuminating the relationship between spaces and educational outcomes. Although there are few facility-related items in existing PISA instruments, a number of proposals will be developed for presentation to the PISA Governing Board for possible inclusion in PISA
2009.

Performance standards . Standards can provide a useful yardstick against which performance can be compared and measured. The OECD project will look to developing performance standards for educational spaces that provide a desired result without a measurable standard; collecting data from countries on local standards; and comparing similar groups or clusters of similar institutions.
Notes
1. This Framework is a collaborative effort by experts participating in three international meetings on “Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities” in Lisbon, Portugal, Telchac-Puerto, Mexico and
Paris, France. The revised Framework is the product of the most recent meeting in Paris from
18-19 September 2006, and the Secretariat would like to acknowledge the contribution of experts at this
5

meeting, particularly those who submitted papers on the topic: Alastair Blyth, Christian Kühn, Geert
Leemans, Lutz Oertel and José Freire da Silva.
6

(REVISED) CELE ORGANISING FRAMEWORK ON EVALUATING QUALITY IN EDUCATIONAL SPACES
LINK BETWEEN EDUCATION
POLICY AND EDUCATIONAL
SPACES
PRINCIPLE
OF QUALITY
CRITERIA OF QUALITY
Increase access and equity to education.
The space provides equitable access to learning. It should also have adequate space capacity in relation to demand.
Improve educational effectiveness and promote acquisition of key competencies.
The space is agile, supporting diverse teaching and learning programmes and pedagogies. It facilitates the interaction of individuals in socially heterogeneous groups; empowers individuals to manage their lives in meaningful and responsible ways by exercising control over their learning environment; and provides an environment that encourages students to use tools interactively – both sociocultural and physical tools such as computers and even elements of the school itself.
2
Fit for purpose
(relating to the benefit of the
space to users)
Symbolic, visually pleasing and offers learning opportunities.
Accessibility to all.
The space is accessible for all young people and adults. It makes provision for students with special needs, including vulnerable and economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities; it is accessible for pedestrians, bicycles, goods vehicles, private cars, public transport and safety services; and the structure is easy to understand for its occupants and offers sufficient points of recognition.
1
Student capacity . There are sufficient spaces in which students learn to adequately support the current and projected student enrolment.
Learning spaces . Learning spaces are agile, accommodating a range of educational programmes and pedagogies; multi-purpose; age-appropriate; of sufficient size to allow students and teaching staff to work, move around in the classroom and work with others; and have sufficient storage capacity to support the spaces in which student learn.
Comfortable spaces. Quality of furniture and lighting; level of internal and external noise; levels of maintenance and temperature and humidity control in the space do not hinder the learning process.
New technologies . The space can host current information technologies.
Social spaces . The space provides a variety of indoor and outdoor areas where students and staff can meet with friends and colleagues, sit quietly or engage in recreational activities.
Staff spaces . The space makes adequate provision for workspace for teaching staff and school administration.
Community use . The space is accessible to the community for use during or after-school hours, and monitored to ensure the safety and security of staff and students.
Symbolic. The space, through its design, displays unique character and meaning to the school and its occupants.
Visually pleasing.
The school and school site are visually pleasing.
Educational resource.
Aspects of the space offer learning opportunities for students.
POINT(S) OF
EVALUATION IN
THE BUILDING
CYCLE
(i.e. pre-design, design, construction, 12 – 24 months after initial occupation, any critical stage during the
building’s use)
EVALUATOR(S)
OF QUALITY
(i.e. policy-makers, students, teaching and non-teaching staff, parents, educationalists, financial bodies, architects, spaces and asset managers and researchers )
EVALUATION TOOL(S)
(i.e. stakeholder questionnaires, focus groups, walkthroughs, interviews and observation]; statistics and indicators using admin. data; international school-based questionnaires; local, regional and national performance standards).
7

Optimise building performance, operation and cost-effectiveness
The space satisfies the performance and operational requirements of a school and demonstrates long-term costeffectiveness.
.
Fit for purpose
(relating to the space's operational
layout)
Healthy and safe
Cost-effectiveness. Initial investments in capital, maintenance and repairs, and operations and staff demonstrate long-term cost-effectiveness.
Management and operation systems. The space is effectively and holistically managed and operated ( i.e.
through the use of flexible management systems by trained operators).
Feedback loops.
There is provision for feedback loops between the building brief and the completed building, and the space evaluation and the design brief.
Design selection. There is a competitive design selection process, involving users.
Potable water. Drinkable water is available to staff and students in an adequate number of locations.
Sanitary spaces. The space has clean, functioning toilets, which are available in sufficient number and locations, and separate spaces for males and females.
Fire safety. The space has a functional fire alarm system and meets standards for the flammability of materials and egress for building occupants.
Emergency lighting. The space has a functional emergency lighting system.
Secure design. The space’s structure protects the physical security of the building’s occupants
.
Building system, material and condition. No building system (mechanical, electrical, plumbing or structural), material or condition presents a health or safety hazard to its occupants.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic . Vehicle pick-up and drop-off zones, parking and pedestrian paths provide safe traffic patterns.
.
Environmentally sustainable
Site planning . The space demonstrates environmentally responsible site planning.
Sustainable systems . The space demonstrates effective and efficient use of water, energy, recycling, waste management and daylighting.
Sustainable methods and materials . The space demonstrates use of sustainable construction methods and building materials.
1. See United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2002), “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Geneva; and the six Education for All goals in The Dakar Framework for
Action: Education for All, Meeting Our Collective Commitments (2000), Paris.
2. See Rychen D.S. and Salganik, L.H. (Eds.) (2003), Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society , Hogrefe & Huber, Göttingen. This report is the product of the OECD’s interdisciplinary and policyoriented research programme, DeSeCo Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations, which was launched at the end of 1997 as part of OECD’s INES Education Indicators Program. The report defines the three “key competencies” necessary for individuals to lead an overall successful life and for society to face the challenges of the present and the future: interacting in socially heterogeneous groups, acting autonomously, and using tools interactively.
8

9