The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EVALUATION
BUILDING OUR FUTURE: SCOTLAND'S SCHOOL ESTATE

4 CASE STUDY

1. This section outlines an evaluation process which focuses on gathering the views of stakeholders, particularly students, staff and others that use the facilities, to assess how well the building meets their needs. A case study was carried out at Craigour Park primary school in Edinburgh. A summary report is included at the end of this section. A copy of the full report can be found on the School Estate Strategy website. ⁷

KEY PLAYERS

2. This evaluation process is conducted by a facilitator who records the comments of various user groups during a series of walk-through tours of the school building and grounds. The facilitator then collates and reports these comments and proposes potential action to address the issues raised. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for the facilitator to make a report on users' views and for another person or group to consider actions. The facilitator for the Craigour Park case study was Chris Watson, a building evaluation specialist.

3. Selecting a representative group of participants is important to ensure that the views gathered in the evaluation are likely to be widely representative of the school's stakeholders. Each walk-through group should consist of about six to eight participants representing a particular group of stakeholders. The Craigour Park case study involved six groups, representing pupils (two groups), parents, teachers, non-teaching staff, and local authority officials.

PROCESS

4. Each group of participants should be given a brief introduction to the process by the facilitator, then invited to comment on any aspects of the building which are of interest to them during a walk through tour of the school. It should be stressed that good as well as bad aspects of the building should be mentioned. Each group's walk through tour is likely to differ slightly, and will be determined by the particular issues raised by the participants. Each tour is likely to take between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on the size of the school.

5. The tours should be objectively recorded by the facilitator using notes, photographs and, possibly, voice recordings. The facilitator has a key role in ensuring that all participants are free to express their opinions without interference or influence from others. However, discussion between participants within a group is an essential part of the evaluation process.

6. At the end of each tour, the group might be asked to agree on what they consider to be the three best and three worst aspects of the building. Each participant's involvement in the evaluation is likely to take no longer than about an hour to an hour and a half.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7. After the tours the facilitator should report on the evaluation. This should provide a brief description of the school, an overview of the evaluation process, and a summary of the comments made. The comments should be considered and recommended actions identified where relevant. This may be completed by the facilitator or involve others working with the facilitator. Each recommendation should be supported by the relevant comments from the groups.

8. Arranging the recommendations into action categories can be helpful for those considering the report. These categories should be considered as part of the planning of the evaluation process. In the Craigour Park case study 39 issues were identified, and 28 recommendations made. The recommendations were arranged into four time-related categories:

9. An authority should be clear from the outset about how the recommendations from an evaluation will be implemented. In this case study, a copy of the report was given to the school which provided feedback to the participants. The recommendations from the evaluation were included as part of a wider exercise by the authority to seek stakeholder views on their PPP1 project, and to inform the planning and briefing for their PPP2 project.

BENEFITS

10. The open nature of the process allows the scope of the evaluation to include all the issues considered important by users based on their experiences of the school, and avoids spending time on less important issues. Resources and time are therefore optimised, and the experience is simple and relevant for participants.

11. In this form of evaluation, buildings are not measured or assessed in a statistical way. The outcomes of the evaluation will focus on learning and should enable relevant points to be translated to other school building projects.

12. The recommendations should be drawn up within a realistic framework for implementation. All comments made during the evaluation process are recorded in the report alongside the relevant recommendations. This approach promotes transparency in the process, as it allows participants to see their views documented and provides evidence to support decision making.

USE

13. This form of evaluation is likely to have three main uses:

• At the start of a new school building project, it could be used in existing schools to identify key issues for users and inform the briefing process.
• Following a school building project (around a year after occupancy) an evaluation will allow fine tuning of the building and inform future school projects.
• As users' needs will change over time, further evaluation, after 5 to 10 years, will allow a review of the building's on-going effectiveness and inform the school estate management plan.

TIMESCALE AND COST

14. This type of evaluation approach is likely to take around 5-10 weeks from start to finish for a medium-sized secondary school. This is likely to consist of:

Preparation (2-3 weeks): Identification of user groups, interview timetabling, participant selection and invitation.

Interviews (1 week): Participant groups are interviewed while walking through the building. A review session is held to verify comments, establish priorities and review the process.

Analysis and recommendations (2-6 weeks): Documentation of participant findings, generation of recommendations, compilation of a report and presentation.

15. The main resources required are participants' time and, possibly, the cost of a facilitator. There will also be some administrative and report-related costs.

EVALUATION AT CRAIGOUR PARK
PRIMARY SCHOOL

SUMMARY

The flexible classroom spaces support learning in a variety of groups very well; the central activity-circulation spaces successfully complement classrooms but some improvements may be possible in the playground. These are our principal conclusions after interviewing thirty-five students, teachers, staff, parents and educational specialists in the evaluation of Craigour Park Primary School in December 2003.

Craigour Park Primary School has a roll of 310 students and capacity of 420 plus 100 nursery students. As a demonstration Post Occupancy Evaluation, we interviewed a reduced number of participant groups. Participant findings are consequently fewer and therefore some recommendations are presented more tentatively than might have been the case with a greater breadth of participant findings.

Touring walk through interviews commenced at the front of the school where participants addressed issues around the relationship of the school to surrounding areas. Following their comments, we have recommended lobbying the local authority to install a pedestrian crossing and/or other safety improvements at the road crossing.

A car park at the front of the school apparently becomes congested with vehicles at busy times. Children walk in and out of the car park and driveway for access rather than using the pedestrian path. We have recommended that, if car parks are provided in future schools, they be separated from student entrances and playgrounds. Around the school site, perimeter fencing is reported to be only partially effective in preventing passage of children, intruders, dogs and stray footballs from the playing field. Design intentions of the fences should be clarified for future schools. An environmental garden, also located at the front of the school, remains only partly developed. We have recommended that a plan be prepared to establish milestones and identify resources and actions necessary for its operation for learning. We heard that the school grounds are used by uninvited visitors during the weekends and that the video surveillance system has an unused potential to deter anti-social behaviour if its presence is made apparent.

All visitors enter the school building through the main foyer, adjacent to the school offices. Upon entering, security clearance is obtained and they are released into the main corridor area. We heard that visitors are able to admit themselves from the foyer by reaching the door release switch through the office window.

Participants were complimentary about the office accommodation but noted minor points relating to the school safe, distraction from people outside the windows and a smaller staff room than they would prefer.

Two nursery rooms with a playground, cloakroom, kitchens and storage accommodate up to 100 younger children. Participants noted several design details that they think could be improved and some that they have already changed. These primarily relate to anthropometrics (human dimensions) of the young occupants and resultant ergonomic issues. For example, the children's sink taps and the whiteboards are beyond their easy reach but door handles and alarm switches are within their reach. Several participants also said that they would prefer more vinyl flooring and less fixed carpet. In the nursery playground, they seek a secure gate within line-of-sight of entrance doors and more soft surface play area.

The gym-assembly hall for the main school was well regarded and the dining hall is appreciated, especially because of its adjacency to the main corridor; not unlike a terrace café. Children reported that there is minimal time to queue and eat their lunch before the bell and we have recommended monitoring this to ensure that they can enjoy the benefits of dining.

The 14 classrooms are arranged in two similar wings, each with a large central activity area giving access to the classrooms that have some movable walls. Participants reported that the concept works very well. The ability to open classrooms to the activity space, and/or the adjacent classroom, is highly regarded by the students, teachers, education specialists and parents, we interviewed. One teacher said that he merges classes every afternoon and commented very favourably on the result. Students were also very positive about the flexible facilities; one associating the flexibility with learning from other students: 'It is really good. We make new friends. You can learn and they help you and that is how you make new friends.'

Participants recommended lowering the white boards in the classrooms to within the reach of children so that they interact on that medium. They also mentioned that white board surfaces should be suitable for data projection and pointed out advantages of roller white boards.

Participants noted that the cloak areas are often untidy because there is insufficient height for coats to hang freely and they are not as open (for security of property) as participants would wish. They pointed out visual privacy issues and excessive waiting times for the children's toilets and storage issues for learning materials. We have recommended that protocols be adjusted to use available facilities most efficiently.

The library is established in a general-purpose room with perimeter shelving. This prompted some participants to suggest fundamental thinking about learning potential available from libraries and design requirements necessary.

The school is heated by a hot water system circulated in the concrete floor slab. It was reported to be comfortable in general, although there were isolated cooler rooms and one participant reported uncomfortably hot feet.

Outside in the playground, participants drew attention to planning issues relating to supervision, litter and safety. Several participants commented on doorstop barriers that incorporate a horizontal bar associated with hazardous behaviour. Participants pointed out the limited space for parents to meet students after school beside the junior block. We recommend development of principles and design guidelines for exploiting the playground as an environment for learning.

In overall terms participants in this evaluation, were very enthusiastic about their new Craigour Park Primary School facilities. The ample provision of dedicated facilities was cited as being particularly beneficial in improving potential for learning.

PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS EVALUATION

This evaluation involves the systematic collection of opinions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the building. Our method is used to confirm suitability of design features and services and identify whether any can be improved. In this way, evaluation is used as a tool for continuous improvement in building design and service to provide the best possible support for organisational goals. The process builds on innovation and creativity of building user groups directly consulted.

The evaluation involved touring walkthrough interviews in and around the building. Each of the interview groups chose their own route through the building and their comments on aspects of the experiences were noted.
The agenda of a typical interview is as follows.

Introduction

• Welcome
• Scope and purpose of evaluation
• Process

Walkthrough

• Touring walk through interview

Review

• Receipt of any additional comments
• Group statement of agreed three best and three worst features of the building
• Brief written questionnaire about the evaluation process

EVALUATION TEAM AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was carried out by Chris Watson on behalf of People Environment Studies Limited. He is a specialist Post Occupancy Evaluation architect with considerable experience in evaluating many school buildings.

Carol Cameron, Head Teacher of Craigour Park Primary School, supported the evaluation planning in organising the participants to attend interviews. Gordon Robertson, of Edinburgh Council's Education Department, facilitated the students' interviews.

The Participant Groups were as follows.

• five parents
• six local education authority officials
• six Primary 3 and 4 pupils
• six Primary 5, 6 and 7 pupils
• five non-teaching school staff
• six teachers

RECOMMENDATIONS

Participants' findings are documented and collated in topics. Where sufficient weight of evidence is considered to exist, recommendations for action have been generated. These recommendations are assigned one of three priorities.

Seek advice from an architect, engineer or other suitably qualified person before implementing any of the recommendations in this document which may involve changes to site works, building fabric, structure, plant and equipment, fitments or furniture.

Recommendations are set out with the relevant findings under section headings.

Comments are not necessarily direct quotations but are, nevertheless, as close a representation of what was said as we were able to achieve while taking hand-written notes during the walkthrough interviews. These should be regarded as paraphrased comments, and they have been included to indicate the feelings and expressions of participants as closely as we were able to do.

The following 6 recommendations are provided for illustrative purposes. The full list of recommendations is set out in the action checklist.

As a matter of urgency, lobby the local authority to install a pedestrian crossing, traffic calming devices or other pedestrian safety measures.

The area is terrible; on a main road. [Parents]

There are busy shops. [Parents]

We have been asking for a crossing for nine months. [Parents]

There is a lollipop lady but if she is off sick ... [Parents]

There is another entrance on Moredun Park Street. There is no lollipop lady there. It is bedlam. [Parents]

I like the lollipop lady because, to stop you getting hurt. [P3, 4 Students]

I like the car park so you don't need to park by the shops and block the shopping.
[P3, 4 Students]

We came in the driveway. [P3, 4 Students]

There is no crossing. It is very dangerous. [Non-teaching Staff]

Twice, I had to ring 999 because the lollipop lady was almost hit. [Non-teaching Staff]

It has been requested from the highway department. [Non-teaching Staff]

We have got two gates. The other one is used by many parents. [Teachers]

They are trying to get a crossing put in. [Teachers]

We need traffic calming. [Teachers]

A lot of parents are trying to get a safe crossing. [Teachers]

A lot of (kerb) barriers have gone up since the school opened. [Teachers]

Ensure that door release switches are located in easy reach of office staff in their work station(s) but NOT accessible to people in the foyer.

The foyer is well secured. [Parents]

It would be good to have a notice board with the school name on it and the ability to pin. [Parents]

You are inside out of the weather but contained and it is big enough for adequate reception. [Education Specialists]

The reception area is lovely. [Education Specialists]

It is difficult if you are in the corridor and seen by someone in the foyer (waiting for attention), because we can't let them in through the security admission procedure. [Education Specialists]

It seemed strange (a security weakness) that the plan was located next to the fire panel. [Education Specialists]

The foyer is good for people who come late, to be let in so the teacher doesn't have to open the door. [P3, 4 Students]

The receptionist can tell you where to go. [P3, 4 Students]

It is beautiful, but you feel like a fish in a goldfish bowl (in the office). It might be an idea to have the office away from the main entry. We could have a video camera. I like to be able to see their body language before I receive them. [Non-teaching Staff]

I had the door lock extended to my desk to save getting up and down all the time. [Non-teaching Staff]

I was at the (office) computer once and saw a hand reach in the open sliding window to operate the door release switch. [Non-teaching Staff]

The welcoming entrance is among the three best aspects of the school.
[Non-teaching Staff]

The foyer is secure. [Teachers]

Children can open the foyer (to corridor) door and let people in. I have seen it happen. [Teachers]

Consider designing future schools with activity spaces similar to those that are highly appreciated at Craigour Park Primary School.

The corridor is great. [Parents]

It is a nice idea. [Parents]

Great. [Parents]

I like this space. [Parents]

The corridor is nice. [Parents]

The corridor is nice and light. [Parents]

There is enough room for kids to be here and people to move through. [Parents]

The classroom and atrium sold the school to us, for our child. [Parents]

There should be an entrance from the corridor to the back playground. [Parents]

The open plan corridor and connected classrooms are among the three best aspects of the school. [Parents]

The central space works remarkably well. It provides flexibility in teaching and learning. The flexibility allows for opening between classrooms and to the central space. The present and future purposes has led the design to make a concentrated effort for teaching and learning. That has been really impressive. [Education Specialists]

It is a good place. We always have places for our things. [P3, 4 Students]

We use it for assemblies. [P3, 4 Students]

We use it for art. [P3, 4 Students]

We can use it for whatever we want. [P3, 4 Students]

The teachers let us work out here if we work quietly. [P3, 4 Students]

We use this for measuring in maths. [P3, 4 Students]

We can read in it quietly. [P3, 4 Students]

Huge ... good ... easy to clean, wash off spillings. We paint here; it gives people more space in the class. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

We use it for golden time. Everybody uses it. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

When there is not enough space in your class you come out here. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

We mix up and work in different areas. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

You are supposed to be quiet out here. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

Circulation is among the three best aspects of the school. It works very well and gets away from the institutional corridors. [Education Specialists]

The central classroom corridor wing is among the three best aspects of the school. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

I work one-to-one with the kids here, but you can hear noise from the classrooms and everywhere. [Non-teaching Staff]

It is a nice big area. It is nice that the roof is so high. It is a beautiful school, lovely school. [Non-teaching Staff]

The central classroom space is among the three best aspects of the school. It is light, bright and spacious and helps classes work together. [Non-teaching Staff]

It is nice to work in. [Teachers]

It is very 21st Century thinking. [Teachers]

The natural light is not sufficient on its own. [Teachers]

The lights have to be on the whole time. [Teachers]

The air circulates when you open the clerestory windows. [Teachers]

The (sink) draining boards don't drain and the sinks don't drain freely. [Teachers]

It is good to share the paint and brush resources centrally, and being able to send children out to use them. [Teachers]

Creative use of the central classroom space is among the three best aspects of the school. [Teachers]

Consider the fundamental learning purposes of libraries and their relationship to information equipment before briefing future designs.

The library is far too small. It needs to be twice as big and have flexible walls to the computer room. [Education Specialists]

There is computer trunking behind the shelves. [Education Specialists]

The library should be designed as an information centre, for example including movable shelves. [Education Specialists]

The shelves shouldn't be against the windows. [Education Specialists]

The shelves are build across the (corridor) windows to prevent people looking in. [Education Specialists]

Some books don't fit on the shelves. [Education Specialists]

We have not thought about the fundamental purpose of the library and information technology (computer) room. [Education Specialists]

We would expect 10% of the books to be displayed face-on. [Education Specialists]

The two doors are nice because one class can enter while the other exits.
[Education Specialists]

The library and IT room wall could be flexible to merge the spaces.
[Education Specialists]

The library shelving (being fixed) on the walls is among the three worst aspects of the school. It loses the flexibility offered by the rest of the building. As the hub of the school, it should be welcoming. [Education Specialists]

Eliminate any safety hazard associated with the door stop bars. Reconsider whether the bar is necessary.

The door bars outside the classrooms are never used (because the emergency doors are seldom opened). [Parents]

The courtyard works well, except for children swinging on the door bars. [Parents]

The door bars have been a safety problem, with lots of banged heads. [Parents]

Swinging on the barriers is among the three worst aspects of the school because "you might smash your head". [P3, 4 Students]

The poles are at the "right" height for nursery kids to bang their heads.
[Non-teaching Staff]

The barriers outside the classroom doors are dangerous to play on. [Teachers]

The roof is accessible by standing on the door barriers. I saw the primary 7's get onto the roof that way. [Teachers]

Modify the coat hanging fittings to allow children's coats to hang freely without falling off. Consider conventional coat hooks and rails for the coats.

Improve security for children's possessions, such as by increasing visibility from the central activity space or using the video surveillance system.

The cloakrooms are good but should have pin boards. We use Blue Tac. [Parents]

The big kids coat hooks are far too low for their big (length of) coats. [Parents]

The cloak area looks nice and you can keep an eye on it. [Parents]

Coat hooks don't give enough height for coats. [Parents]

I like the (provision of the) cloak room to prevent clutter in the classroom, but it is not big enough. 60 kids taking shoes off is a nightmare. [Education Specialists]

There is no security for bags and jackets. [Education Specialists]

There is not enough pin-able space (wall area). [Education Specialists]

It is always a mess. [P3, 4 Students]

People put their shoes on the floor. [P3, 4 Students]

You could trip on them. [P3, 4 Students]

It could be bigger and wider. [P3, 4 Students]

Children budge in more shoes. [P3, 4 Students]

It is quite squashy because everyone gets poked. [P3, 4 Students]

We could put up signs DO NOT PUS" or use it one by one. [P3, 4 Students]

The coats are taller than the space available. [P3, 4 Students]

The cloak areas are squashed normally. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

People just throw their stuff down. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

Other people knock coats down. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

Hooks are shaped and sized to allow coats to easily be knocked off. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

The hooks (and available hanging length) are the same size as those for the little kids. Some coats are huge. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

If you had lockers, other people wouldn't put things in your space. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

My shoes were lost. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

We should have lockers. You could keep your shoes at the bottom and trainers at the top, and homework and school bag ... just like at the swimming pool.
[P5, 6, 7 Students]

The cloakroom is among the three worst aspects of the school. [P5, 6, 7 Students]

The coats don't dry because they lay over the top of each other. [Non-teaching Staff]

Pegs are too close together to get seven coats on the seven pegs and they don't match the six shoeboxes. [Teachers]

You can't tell which peg matches the name. [Teachers]

The water fountains flood the floor. [Teachers]

Cloakroom size is among the three worst aspects of the school. It needs a camera or to be open to view the central space. [Teachers]

ACTION CHECKLIST

SUMMARY OF BEST AND WORST ASPECTS

At the conclusion of each interview participant groups summarised their opinions by nominating the three best and worst aspects of the building. Phrases describing those issues are tabulated below. The full text of each comment can be seen on the relevant recommendation page.

« Previous | Contents | Next »