Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Graham Watts OBE, Chief Executive, Construction Industry Council
(CIC)
ORAL EVIDENCE—SUSTAINABLE
SCHOOLS AND
BUILDING SCHOOLS
FOR THE
FUTURE
Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to
your committee earlier today. I'm sorry that we over-ran our time
slot but suspect that this was inevitable given the range of issues
discussed.
There were a few brief additional points that
I would have wished to make as concluding remarks to my evidence
had the time been available and I am therefore sending this supplementary
written submission to deal with these residual matters.
DATA
In my evidence, I referred briefly to some early
data which indicated that examination results and student attitudes
were seen to be improved in relation to a few of the completed
BSF projects. For completeness, I give below the headline figures
quoted in evidence which show that the BSF is making a difference
in the few schools that have been completed long enough to show
indicators of improved educational and environmental outputs:
EXAMINATION RESULTS
AT GRADES
A-C
|
| — Oxclose | 41% to 62%
|
| — Bristol Brunel Academy (BBA) |
19% to 34% |
| — Chaucer B&E College | 18% to 22%
|
| — All Saints | record number of university places achieved
|
ATTITUDINAL SURVEY
AT BRISTOL
BRUNEL ACADEMY
|
| — Students feeling safe | up 30%
|
| — Students feeling proud | up 33%
|
| — Vandalism | down 51%
|
| — Bullying | down 23%
|
| — Intention to stay on in sixth form
| up 13% |
In his response, Graham Stuart MP referred to the latter
issues as "anecdotal". (Q113) I think it is important,
for the record, to say that the data is the product of an independent
research study by NFER for PFS and therefore, by definition, not
anecdotal. The headline findings were presented to the Strategic
Forum for Construction (hosted by CIC and chaired by the Rt Hon
Nick Raynsford MP) at a meeting on 11 December 2008 by Partnerships
for Schools. The slides were cleared for circulation and so I
have no reason to believe that the information is confidential
but it may be appropriate to check with PFS before these are published.
The point is, of course, that with only 42 schools completed
and open by 31 December 2008 (with over 1,000 more now engaged
in the process) it is far too early to make hard judgements on
the success or otherwise of the BSF programme in improving the
educational experience for our children. My point was merely to
indicate that the early reliable indicators—as opposed to
anecdotal conjecture—is that both the educational experience
and attainment are improving as a result of the process.
POST-OCCUPANCY
EVALUATION AND
A RESEARCH/FEEDBACK
LOOP
Although the issue of POEs was briefly touched upon, I'm
concerned that there was no time to return to this vital potential
component of the programme.
In my view, virtually every issue that the Committee raised
with the panel of witnesses pointed to the inescapable fact that
a programme of this size and significance must have a proper and
robust framework for post-occupancy evaluation and—most
importantly—feedback. In this context, the POE needs to
be much more than a stand-alone post-mortem on each project, taken
in isolation, but much more an ongoing life support system for
the programme as a whole. Lessons learned from one project should
be capable of being fed into BSF projects further down the line.
To achieve what is needed is a process carrier—or framework—that
enables various feedback methodologies and techniques (such as
DQIs, BREEAM, occupant satisfaction surveys, detailed energy assessments
etc) to be utilised by project teams to inform design and construction.
This ongoing research should be co-ordinated for the whole
of the BSF programme and needs to be adequately resourced. The
concept of a "soft landings" process for schools fits
well as a means of ensuring a calibration of all aspects of the
building's services in the early months of operation.
I hope that these additional points are helpful in augmenting
the oral evidence given earlier today.
January 2009
| 
