Brief No: 407
March 2003
ISBN 1 84185 941 9
BUILDING BETTER PERFORMANCE: AN
EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
LEARNING AND OTHER IMPACTS OF
SCHOOLS CAPITAL INVESTMENT
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Introduction
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is firmly committed to improving the quality of the schools
capital stock. A comprehensive strategy for schools capital investment was developed and published early in
1999 (see http://www.dfee.gov.uk/scs), and this has been underpinned by subsequent announcements of major
additional investment. This reflects an understanding that improving the quality of the schools capital stock is
likely to have an important influence on learning outcomes amongst pupils. Furthermore, there is also a view that
the impact of schools capital investment goes beyond learning outcomes amongst school pupils, and that the use
of school buildings can have a positive impact on the wider community. This research brief presents the
outcomes of a study of the learning and other broader impacts of schools capital investment.
Key Findings

The research provides some additional evidence which supports the view that there is a positive and
statistically significant association between capital investment and pupil performance;

In terms of the different types of capital investment, the strongest positive statistical findings are in
relation to measures of investment which can be related directly to the teaching of the curriculum (e.g.
Science blocks, ICT-related capital spending, etc, referred to by the Department as ‘suitability’
investment);

The research provided further qualitative evidence of the links between schools capital investment and
some of the key drivers of pupil performance, in particular, pupil behaviour/motivation and teacher morale;

However, head teachers in low-performing and high-performing schools reported less strong links between
capital investment and pupil attainment than head teachers of average-performance schools. Many of the
heads of high and low-performing schools suggested the possibility that contextual factors, being more
extreme for such schools, diminished the strength of any link between capital investment and pupil
attainment; and

While the nature and intensity of the community use of schools varied considerably between schools, the
main community use was in terms of specialist facilities (e.g. ICT suites, early years facilities, auditoria, and
sports facilities). Amongst the schools investigated, those located in areas of relatively high economic and
social deprivation tended, on average, to be used more by the wider community.
Background
While the view is generally held that improving the
quality of the school capital stock is likely to have
an important influence on learning outcomes among
pupils, there has, until recently, been relatively
little evidence to support this view in the UK.
However, in January 2000, a report entitled
Building Performance was published in the DfES
Research Report Series . This presented the
findings from a major study, commissioned by the
DfES and undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers,
into the effects of schools capital investment on
pupil performance.
In January 2001 the DfES commissioned
PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop the original
Building Performance research, and to conduct a
further evaluation study of schools capital
investment. The main aims of the study were to:


Conduct further testing on the hypothesis of a
statistical
relationship
between
capital
investment and pupil performance, focusing in
particular on the relative impacts of different
types of capital spending; and
Examine whether or not the claims made about
the potential broader impacts of schools
capital investment, could be provided with an
empirical basis.
Methodology
The methodological approach adopted in the study
involved two main research strands, quantitative and
qualitative, related to the two study objectives.
The quantitative analysis involved collecting data
for the period 1990-2000, in relation to capital
spending, pupil performance and a range of other
factors across all maintained schools in 3 Local
Education Authorities (LEAs) in England. The LEAs,
which represented a spectrum of sizes, locations,
performance
levels
and
socio-economic
circumstances, were selected on the basis that they
had the most comprehensive data on capital
expenditure since 1990. The final database
contained information on more than 900 schools.
The qualitative analysis consisted of two main
stages, namely a design / conceptual development
stage, and a fieldwork stage involving a series of indepth interviews. In the design / conceptual
development stage of the work, a conceptual model
of the nature of the broader benefits of schools
capital investment was developed. The fieldwork
involved a series of in-depth interviews with
headteachers, other teaching and non-teaching
school staff from 12 schools across the 3 LEAs, and
a range of broader stakeholders such as communitybased organisations, FE college staff and local
businesses.
Schools capital investment and changes in pupil
performance - quantitative evidence
The main focus of the analysis was on (a) whether a
differential statistical association could be
identified between the various types of capital
spending and pupil performance, and (b) whether
there was any evidence to suggest a causal
relationship between any of the different types of
capital spending and pupil performance.
In
agreement with the DfES, three types of capital
spending were analysed: suitability spending which is
capital investment that can be linked directly to the
teaching of the curriculum (e.g. Science blocks, ICT
related spending); condition spending which is
capital investment on the condition needs of schools
(e.g. repairs to roofs and windows); and sufficiency
spending, which is capital investment related
directly to accommodating greater numbers of
pupils.
The key quantitative findings from the study are as
follows:

The research provides some additional
evidence to support the view that there is a
positive and statistically significant association
between
capital
investment
and
pupil
performance;

The most significant evidence, from a
statistical point of view, is in relation to
community primary schools. This is due to a
number of issues relating to data quality and
coverage for other types of schools; and

In terms of the different types of capital
investment, the strongest positive findings are
in relation to measures of investment that can
be related directly to the teaching of the
curriculum (i.e. ‘suitability’ investment). This is
consistent with expectations since, a priori, one
would expect such investment to have a more
direct impact on performance than ‘condition’
or ‘sufficiency’ investment.
The
broader
impacts
of
schools
investment - qualitative evidence


The main demand for school facilities was in
terms of specialist facilities (e.g. ICT suites,
early years facilities), auditoria (e.g. for use by
drama groups and other local clubs / societies
etc) and sports facilities (e.g. outdoor and
indoor pitches, swimming pool etc);

The evidence suggests that the broader
community benefits of the use of school
facilities are enhanced, when they are
underpinned
by
effective
inter-agency
partnership arrangements (e.g. the school
being used as a local ‘outreach centre’ by FE
colleges or local health authorities);

The evidence suggests that investing in schools
capital is a reasonably efficient and effective
way of capturing these broader benefits. The
qualitative evidence suggests that this is
particularly the case in relatively deprived
areas, and likely to be less so in more
prosperous areas. The following ‘drivers’
underpin these findings:
capital
The qualitative research investigated whether any
evidence could be provided to support the view that
the impact of schools, and school buildings in
particular, goes beyond learning outcomes amongst
school pupils. The key findings from the qualitative
research in relation to the broader uses of schools
are as follows:


The qualitative research provided some
further evidence in support of the view that
improvements in the physical fabric of school
buildings
can
help
to
enhance
pupil
performance, e.g. ‘suitability’ related projects
such as science laboratories, ICT suites,
improving teaching and learning in technologyrelated subjects, and ‘condition’-related
projects such as improvements to roofs and
windows improving teacher and pupil morale;
Capital investment on its own is not necessarily
enough and rather, pupil performance is
impacted on by a wide range of contextual
factors relating to pupils’ overall ‘learning
environment’.
For example, there is some
qualitative
evidence
to
suggest
that
improvements in performance brought about by
capital investment both in areas which are
economically very deprived, and in areas which
are economically very prosperous will be
positive, but may be less so than in other areas;
All of the headteachers interviewed indicated
that their school was used, to some extent, by
stakeholders in the wider community.
On
average, the intensity of school usage was
greater in areas of high economic and social
deprivation.
Many of these areas were
relatively under-provisioned, in terms of
alternative resources, and so the school
effectively acted as a key public resource
within the community. Related to this, schools
in these areas tended to be ‘local’, which
benefited those from poorer backgrounds,
many of whom would be reliant on paying for
public transport to attend alternative
locations;
- ‘Captive’ constituency; all children attend
school, notwithstanding exceptional cases.
This means that some of the broader benefits
to school pupils (e.g. health benefits) have
almost universal population coverage; and
- Accessibility; schools tend to be easily
accessible physically, which is particularly
important within areas of high deprivation /
social exclusion. In addition, since schools can
command a sense of ‘ownership’ amongst most
sections of the community, they tend not to
suffer from some of the psychological
barriers, or ‘chill factors’, experienced by
some other forms of provision.
Additional Information
Copies of the full report (RR407) - priced £4.95 are available by writing to DfES Publications, PO
Box 5050, Sherwood Park, Annesley, Nottingham
NG15 0DJ.
Cheques should be made payable to “DfES Priced
Publications”.
Copies of this Research Brief (RB407) are available
free of charge from the above address (tel: 0845
60 222 60). Research Briefs and Research Reports
can also be accessed at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/
Further information about this research can be
obtained from Shaw Warnock, Room 3.12, DfES,
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London
SW1P 3BT.
Email: shaw.warnock@dfes.gsi.gov.uk