WORKING GROUP ON EVALUATING QUALITY IN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
FIRST MEETING: 18-19 SEPTEMBER 2006, OECD, PARIS
At the PEB Governing Board meeting in February 2006, Governing Board members agreed to
establish a working group to advance PEB’s work on evaluating quality in educational facilities, initiated
in 2005. This document describes the objectives, format and themes of this working group, to be held in
Paris from 18-19 September 2006, within the context of the outcomes of two previous experts’ group
meetings on evaluating quality in educational facilities.
Background
In 2005, the OECD Programme on Educational Building co-organised two international experts’
group meetings in Lisbon, Portugal and Telchac-Puerto, Mexico to discuss how countries define and
evaluate quality in educational facilities. More than 40 international experts − architects, social scientists,
academics, facility evaluation specialists, and representatives from state and national administrations −
from 14 countries, and UNESCO and the Organisation of American States, participated in the meetings.
The meetings’ objectives were to define a set of international principles and criteria for evaluating
quality in educational facilities; to discuss methodologies used to measure quality in different countries;
and to consider options for international methodologies to evaluating quality in educational facilities. The
principal outcome of the meeting was a draft organising framework for evaluating quality in educational
facilities (see Annex 1). This framework comprises the following:

Definition, principles and criteria of quality in educational facilities.

Examples of successful methods for evaluating quality in educational facilities.

Parameters within which quality in educational facilities must be defined and evaluated.
A matrix was developed (see Annex 2) that can be used to relate methods of evaluating quality in
educational facilities to educational policy, the principles and criteria of quality, and the stage (i.e. preoccupation [pre-design, design and construction] and occupation) at which the building is evaluated.
Objectives of the working group
The objectives of the working group on evaluating quality in educational facilities are threefold:

To validate the organising framework on evaluating quality in educational facilities, described
above (see Annex 1).

To explore and assess the suitability of methods for evaluating quality in educational facilities
(e.g. user-centred tools; statistics and indicators; and quality benchmarks) for the purpose of
international comparability, within the context of the organising framework (see Annex 2).
1

To make concrete recommendations to the PEB Governing Board on an appropriate “method
package” – incorporating a range of suitable methods that respond to specific research questions
and policy issues – that could be implemented at an international level.
Participation in the working group
This group will comprise a small number of experts, many of whom participated in one or both of the
experts’ group meetings on evaluating quality in educational facilities in 2005. PEB Governing Board
members are asked to support the participation of the expert in the working group meeting.
Format of the meeting
The meeting will be divided into four sessions. Each session will commence with a short issues paper
(10 minutes) delivered by one or two of the experts, followed by a group discussion. If necessary, experts
will form smaller groups at the end of each session to formulate recommendations to the PEB Governing
Board.
Issues
The meeting will address the following topics and related focus questions:
1.
2.
3.
PEB Organising Framework and Matrix for Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities

Is the existing organising framework and matrix an acceptable conceptual model for
evaluating quality in educational facilities? Can existing methods fit into this matrix?

Which educational policy issues should aspects of this framework address?

How can the results of evaluation feed back into the design process?
Developing Common User-Centred Tools for Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities

Given the range of effective user-centred methods for evaluating quality in educational
facilities – interviews, walkthroughs, focus-groups, questionnaires, etc. – can a common
approach be developed that measures the needs and satisfaction of stakeholders in different
countries? For example, can a facilities-related questionnaire for 15-year-old students
developed within the framework of the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) demonstrate a positive relationship between the quality of educational facilities and
student performance?

How could such an approach be designed, in terms of its objectives (e.g. to collect examples
of best practice on facilities that respond to users’ needs; to collect comparable data on
building performance and functionality), research methods and tools used, actors in the study,
development and implementation time and cost, outputs, etc?

What are the potential benefits and constraints in implementing such an approach?
Developing Quality Indicators on Educational Infrastructure

What are the existing international data sources on educational facilities (e.g. PISA,
administrative-, state-/province- and local-level data collections)?
2
4.

What (potentially internationally comparable) indicators can be generated from existing
sources that address issues of quality in educational facilities?

What policy issues could such indicators address?
Developing International Quality Benchmarks on Educational Infrastructure

Is it feasible or desirable to establish benchmarks of “quality” in educational facilities (e.g.
school construction and maintenance standards, student capacity regulations for classrooms
and schools, space standards, comfort and health norms (i.e. acoustics, hygiene), security
regulations)?

What are the constraints in developing such benchmarks? What type of international
benchmarks (if any) could be established?

What is the real and potential policy impact of establishing standards, guidelines or
benchmarks of quality in educational facilities at an international level?
Issues papers
To initiate, stimulate and focus discussion, experts will be asked to prepare a short (500-word) issues
paper. The paper will address one or more of the focus questions in the sessions described above.
Working language
The working language for the meeting is English.
3
Annex 1. Organising framework for evaluating quality in educational facilities
Defining “quality” in education facilities
Experts agreed on the following definition of “quality” in educational facilities:
“All individuals have a right to a quality educational facility, a physical space that
facilitates the learning process and demonstrates cost-effectiveness 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 inspirational setting for its
occupants.
Universal parameters – reflecting temporal, local and concrete quality dimensions – such
as flexibility, sustainability, and preventive and corrective maintenance can be used to
evaluate the physical space that defines a school.”
Identifying principles and criteria for evaluating quality in educational facilities
The seven broad principles, or base guidelines, of “quality” in educational facilities identified in the
first experts’ group meeting were refined in the second experts’ group meeting as follows:
1.
Fit for purpose
Objective. Does the facility meet the general requirements of a school (i.e. all facilities should be
flexible, multi-purpose, inclusive for people with mild to moderate special educational needs, ageappropriate, and effectively and holistically planned and managed)?
Subjective. Does the facility meet the needs of the users? Does it encourage community
involvement/access? Are the school community and others involved in the design, planning, and day-to-day
management, maintenance and use of the facility?
2.
Inspirational and symbolic
Does the facility have character and display architectural, educational, socio-cultural (i.e. impact of
local culture) or technological ambition (i.e. ICT)/innovation?
3.
Environmentally sustainable
Does the facility demonstrate environmentally responsible site planning and use of environmentally
sustainable materials and construction methods? Does the building demonstrate efficient use of water,
energy, recycling and waste management, and daylighting?
4.
Healthy and comfortable
Does the facility meet health standards? Does it meet with visual, acoustic, ergonomic and thermal
standards - is it comfortable?
5.
Safe and secure
Does the facility meet security standards? Is the facility resistant to natural disasters?
6.
Cost-effective
4
Are initial investments in capital, maintenance and repairs, and operations and staff cost-effective in
the long term?
Identifying effective methodologies for evaluating quality in educational facilities
Experts also identified a number of successful approaches, involving both qualitative and quantitative
research methods, for evaluating the quality of the built environment:

Post-occupancy evaluation, which has been implemented in Australia, Brazil, New Zealand,
Portugal, the United Kingdom and United States, uses a variety of qualitative techniques such as
interviews, observation, walkthroughs and focus groups by one or several evaluators, with a high
degree of stakeholder involvement.

Inventories of school accommodation have been established and indicators generated to identify
areas of greatest need in countries such as Greece and Portugal.

Standards or norms are being developed to ensure adequate standards of quality in new building
construction, maintenance and equipment in countries such as El Salvador and Mexico.

Although there is a growing amount of literature on the relationship between pedagogy and
design of learning environments, further research is required to better understand how to measure
the educational effectiveness of the built environment.
While there is no single “best approach” for evaluating quality, experts stressed that several broad
guidelines must be followed when defining and implementing an evaluation methodology. The approach
used must be:

Multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary, bringing together experts and others from the fields of
education, architecture, engineering, child psychology, anthropology, environmental psychology,
sociology and public policy.

Participatory, ensuring early and continuous feedback with policy-makers, students, teaching and
non-teaching staff, parents, educationalists, financial bodies, architects, the media, facilities and
asset managers and researchers.

Holistic, providing a systemic and integrated vision of a built environment throughout all phases
of the facility’s − from planning to project delivery to occupation and management − and
society’s life cycles.

Multi-method, incorporating aspects of appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods into the
research design.

Purposeful and valid, having a process, a timeframe and research questions that are clear and
objectives that are tangible and ever-present. Evaluators must be neutral, trained and accredited
by external authorities.

Policy-oriented. Evaluation must respond to and influence policy.
5
Recognising parameters
An understanding of the relationship between architecture, educational effectiveness and educational
policy is fundamental to the establishment of any framework or methodology that addresses the evaluation
of educational facilities. To investigate how these three domains inter-relate, a number of variables must be
considered:

Audience. i.e. How do students, teachers, non-teaching staff, school administration, facility and
asset managers, the community, the media, educationalists, academics, architects, researchers and
policy makers define a quality (built) learning environment? What is their role in evaluating the
design quality of a facility?

Existing design standards, guidelines and data. i.e. Facilities should also be evaluated against
existing design principles, standards, norms, legislation, regulations and guidelines established by
educational authorities. Existing data or inventories of educational facilities should also be
analysed against these standards.

Temporal factors. i.e. Could the framework and methodology be applied for both existing and
new educational facilities, and for all phases of the building’s life cycle?

Spatial factors. i.e. How can a framework and methodology consider the use and function of
educational space (fixed vs flexible infrastructure, specialised vs multi-purpose teaching space
and shared vs non-shared teaching space)?

Educational factors. i.e. Would the framework and methodology consider all levels of education
and institutions: pre-primary, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary?

Other contextual factors.
 Pedagogical/organisation of learning factors (e.g. student-centred vs teacher-centred learning,
didactic vs interactive learning, fixed curriculum vs flexible subjects).
 Economic factors (i.e. level of capital investment).
 Historical (e.g. historical buildings, heritage areas) and physical/geographical (e.g. urban vs
rural, local vs regional vs national) factors.
 Political factors (e.g. centralised vs decentralised systems).
 Socio-cultural factors.
 Human/community factors (e.g. levels of community commitment).
6
Annex 2. Matrix for evaluating quality in educational facilities
Policy issue
Principle
Element
Point at which quality will be evaluated
Pre-occupation
Occupation
Pre-design stage
Design stage
Construction
New buildings
Older buildings
(i.e. involving
(i.e. participatory
phase
(in use less than (in use more than
architects’ brief, designstage)
5 years)
5 years)
safety guidelines,
national educational
policies and
programmes, etc.)
Educational
effectiveness
Fit for purpose:
Objective
Fit for purpose:
Subjective
Does the facility meet the general requirements of a school? Are spaces:
Flexible?
Multi-purpose?
Inclusive for people with mild
to moderate special
educational needs?
Age appropriate?
Effectively and holistically
planned and managed?
Does the facility promote social cohesion? Does/is it:
Satisfy the needs of its users?
Open to the community?
Involve school community and
others in the design, planning,
and day-to-day management,
maintenance and use of the
facility?
7
(involving local,
regional and local level
upgrading, remodeling,
refurbishing)
Inspirational and
symbolic
Environmentally
sustainable
Healthy and
comfortable
Safe and secure
Cost-benefit
Long-term costeffectiveness of
initial facility
investments, in
terms of
Architecturally innovative?
Educationally innovative?
Technologically innovative (ICT)?
Socio-culturally innovative?
Environmentally responsible in
terms of site planning?
Use water, energy, recycling,
waste management and daylighting
effectively and efficiently?
Use sustainable construction
methods and building products?
Hygienic?
Ergonomically comfortable?
Thermally comfortable?
Visually comfortable?
Acoustically comfortable?
Secure?
Resistant to natural disasters?
Capital costs?
Maintenance and repairs?
Operations and staff costs?
8