This is the project page for the Mt. Lebanon High School Renovation.
- Comparables — other schools in PA or nation wide
- Facility quality
- Facility cost
- Student achievement
- How much will the renovation cost? (What about in terms of, say, career teachers?)
- What is the least expensive option that could possibly be acceptable?
- What is the most expensive option that could possibly be acceptable?
- How will it be paid for?
- How long will it take?
- What effect will it have on overall student achievement? Now? Later?
- Would other options provide the same benefits for less cost?
- Would other options provide greater benefits for the same cost?
Here are some helpful source documents.
[Note: this list is incomplete and serves as a scratch pad for keeping track of interesting sources as we find them. Later, we must organize and annotate this list and make sure that it is representative of the entire population of reliable sources.]
- The calendar of past renovation-related meetings and events (runs from July 2008 to present)
- The official MTLSD High School Renovation Site
- The DeJong High School Utilization Study and Process
- The Kenneth Brooks report (2001) estimated the cost to “update the high school”: $30 million.
- The Traffic Impact Study and Traffic Analysis Details by Wilbur Smith Associates (2009).
- Facility Assessment: Mt. Lebanon Sr. High School by Valentour English Bodnar & Howell (July 10, 2001).
- Report of Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos by PSI, Inc. (October 29, 2009).
- 2007 AHERA Re-inspection and Management Planner Update by SE Technologies. (November 1, 2007)
- Inspection of Mt. Lebanon Senior High School for Asbestos-Containing Material by Industrial Environmental Health Consultants (August 10, 1988).
- GAO Report: SCHOOL FACILITIES: Physical Conditions in School Districts Receiving Impact Aid for Students Residing on Indian Lands, October 2009.: “Some research suggests that better school facilities are associated with better student outcomes, and school district officials agreed, but there is little evidence of a causal relationship” (p. 18).
- Understanding the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence From Wyoming, Lawrence O. Picus et al., 2005. From abstract: “Using the results of standardized test scores from Wyoming students and a detailed assessment of every school building in the state of Wyoming, it can be concluded that there is essentially no relationship between the quality of school facilities and student performance when other factors known to impact student performance are accounted for.”
- In Search of More Productive Schools: A Guide To Resource Allocation In Education, Lawrence O. Picus, University of Oregon, 2001. (Via James Fraasch) See Figure 4.4 on p. 72, which summarizes the effects on student achievement of 4 policy options. In short, you get the most bang for the buck by investing in teacher education (0.22), followed by teacher experience (0.18), then teacher salaries (0.16), and then lowering pupil-teacher ratio (0.04). The effects in parentheses are expressed in improved test scores, relative to the standard deviation.