Search

Construction and maintenance of school facilities are big cost drivers for schools, and the quality of school facilities can make a difference in student learning and health. Notably, school building construction is the second-highest capital expenditure of state and local funds, trailing only investments in infrastructure like roads. Ensuring access to safe, modern learning environments for all students is a critical and often overlooked aspect of school funding policy at the state level. A 2021 analysis estimates an annual shortfall of $85 billion in school facilities funding and recommends districts nearly double their spending on maintenance, operations, and capital construction. This brief discusses: (1) the importance of school facilities for student equity; (2) local roles in capital funding; (3) states' differing approaches to facilities funding; and (4) funding charter school facilities.

This set of tables introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2019. Specifically, this report includes the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function and object; (4) current expenditures; and (5) current expenditures per pupil. The finance data used in this report are from the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is the primary National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. [For "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: FY 18. Finance Tables. NCES 2020-306," see ED607297.]

Long before closures due to the coronavirus pandemic, many Pennsylvania schools faced a different health crisis: unsafe facilities. Crumbling buildings, asbestos, lead, and other school facility health and safety risks plague many schools across Pennsylvania, particularly in low-income districts and those that enroll a high percentage of Black and Latinx students. The Commonwealth's failure to provide adequate facilities funding has created what Pennsylvania school administrators and school business officials have called a "growing disparity between those school districts that can address vital school construction, renovation or maintenance needs and those that cannot." This brief: (1) examines available evidence related to the condition of Pennsylvania's school facilities; (2) reviews past, current, and proposed policies related to how the state funds emergency facilities expenses; and (3) discusses how other states provide for emergency school facilities funding. Four findings are discussed in detail and recommendations are provided for how Pennsylvania can improve current funding policy to ensure safe and healthy school facilities and address disparities in district capacity to do so.

This report examines estimates of school infrastructure needs and discusses the federal role in financing early childhood facilities, elementary and secondary (K-12) public school infrastructure, and postsecondary educational facilities. Federal programs that provide support for school construction and renovation are organized in this report according to characteristics associated with their availability. For instance, some sources of federal support are broadly and consistently available; others are available only episodically, such as in the aftermath of a disaster. Additional programs are targeted toward specific geographic areas or populations, while still others are available for specific institutions or types of institutions. The report concludes with a description of legislation acted upon in the 116th Congress as of the date of publication including: H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019; H.R. 762 and S. 253, both entitled the Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act; P.L. 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); and H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. [This is a substantially revised version of a report originally written by Cassandria Dortch.]

A growing number of states have policies that positively address resource equity in school construction, distributing capital resources based on district wealth (although as addressed in this brief, these policies are not always implemented with actual funding), but almost no states require any consideration of diversity or segregation in their school construction decision-making processes, even though this is a major factor affecting educational equity. This report/analysis provides an overview of the historical relationship of school construction and school segregation, including evidence of school construction policies in key desegregation court cases. It then describes the state role in local school construction today, highlights key trends and themes of this role, and provides two case studies that help to showcase examples of state participation in school construction, including successes and challenges. It ends by providing recommendations for states to better leverage their influence over local school construction to avoid perpetuating school segregation, and actively support school diversity.

Public school facilities primarily serve an educational role, and they also serve a civic role as voting places and emergency shelters. School districts collectively spend tens of billions of dollars each year on facilities construction needs at the nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools nationwide. About half (an estimated 54 percent) of public school districts need to update or replace multiple building systems or features in their schools, according to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) national survey of school districts. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 included a provision for GAO to study the condition of public school facilities. This report examines: (1) the common facility condition issues school districts identify in public schools and how they have done so; and (2) school districts' highest priorities for their school facility renovations and updates, and how districts and states fund them. GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of school districts and also surveyed 50 states and the District of Columbia; visited 55 schools in 16 districts across six states, selected for geographic variation and other characteristics; analyzed federal data on school district expenditures for capital construction projects; and interviewed federal, state, district, and school officials.

As educators across the country make a valiant effort to meet the needs of their students in response to the coronavirus crisis, the educational impacts of disparities in family resources and school funding are apparent. The crisis also reminds us of the many roles that schools play beyond academics. When students eventually return to school, will we merely continue our current policies, or might we make some progress in developing a fairer public school system, including, potentially, a more integrated one? State governments are in the best position to reverse the tide of increasing racial and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools, if the political will is present. The federal government, through the Every Student Succeeds Act ("ESSA"), provides significant compensatory funding for lower-income schools in Title I. Related sections of ESSA can also provide funding incentives for school integration, as could Congress. But for the past few decades, Congress has been reluctant to impose any real accountability for integration on state and local governments. This leaves a very large policy vacuum for state governments to fill. The model policies in this policy brief represent small but meaningful steps that state legislatures can take to begin to bring students and communities back together. These policies would begin to provide greater flexibility and support for districts that understand the value of racial and socioeconomic integration, and greater accountability for segregation both within and across districts. They propose funding for a variety of voluntary integration efforts, put stronger limits on school district secession, require assessments of the segregation impacts of significant capital investments, and institute systems of measurement for school segregation--something only a handful of states currently require. [These model state policies were written with the assistance of Sue Lin from Hogan Lovells.]

A 2014 study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) found that 53% of public elementary and secondary schools need to spend money on repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put their onsite buildings in good overall condition. The study estimated that the nationwide spending necessary to reach this standard would be approximately $197 billion, or about $4.5 million per school that needs improvements. This report provides a description of and background for selected provisions in the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019 (H.R. 865/S. 266), which would provide federal funding for public school construction. H.R. 865 was ordered to be reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor on February 26, 2019. As no action has been taken on the identical companion bill S. 266 since it was introduced in the Senate, this report addresses H.R. 865.

On January 10, 2019, Governor Newsom released his Budget Proposal for the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which includes around $60 billion in state funds for K-12 schools. The budget bill and implementation bills will be deliberated and modified in each house in the upcoming months after which they are expected to incorporate significant revisions that will be proposed by the Governor in May 2019 and signed and enacted by July 2019. There is considerable alignment between the Governor's Budget Proposal and the key findings from "Getting Down to Facts II" (GDTFII), which was released in September 2018. GDTFII--a collaboration of over 100 researchers from across the country--published 36 studies on the current status of California's PreK-12 public education system. This policy brief describes the elements of the Budget Proposal that coincide with key findings from GDTFII, discusses the current context in California in that domain, and brings to bear additional research from GDTFII as evidence to inform budget and policy discussions that unfold over the next several months.

This service plan outlines how the Ministry of Education (British Columbia) will support the government's priorities, including selected action items identified in the Minister's Mandate Letter. Over the previous fiscal year, the Ministry of Education made progress on these priorities by: (1) completing the funding model review to inform the development of a stable and sustainable funding model for the K-12 education system; (2) implementing a $5M per year capital fund for playground equipment; (3) doubling the pace of seismic mitigation school capital project approvals; (4) completing the development of the new Grades 10-12 curriculum; (5) implementing Grade 10 curriculum in the 2018/19 school year, and preparing the Grade 11-12 curriculum for implementation in the 2019-20 school year; (6) focusing on vulnerable students by hosting a two-day School Community Mental Health conference, that brought together, for the first time ever, more than 300 educators and community partners focused on making life better for students struggling with mental health challenges; (7) focusing on inclusive, and welcoming schools; (8) supporting the Ministry of Children and Family Development in advancing the Childcare BC plan, an investment of $1-billion investment in child care over the next three years; and (9) Investing over $1.5 million to help address teacher recruitment and retention issues. This year's Service Plan includes: (1) Minister Accountability Statement; (2) Purpose of the Ministry; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Performance Planning; and (5) Resource Summary.

The Wyoming Community College Commission's internal strategic plan for the four-year period spanning 2021 through 2024 is tied directly to the statutorily required Priorities established by the Commission. Specific agency sections for mission statement, responsibilities and accomplishments will be relayed in the agency's annual report. For the time span of 2021 through 2024, the following seven areas and their corresponding goals have been identified as priorities for the accountability of the Wyoming Community College Commission staff members: (1) Educational Attainment; (2) New Statewide College System Strategic Plan Development and Implementation; (3) Common Transcript/Transfer Process; (4) Data Governance and Data Informed Decisions: DMARS and State Longitudinal Education Data System (SLEDS); (5) Special Programs and New Grant Opportunities; (6) Program Tracking and Implementation; and (7) Capital Construction (CAPCON). [For the 2016-2020 plan, see ED590007.]

Doing more with less is noble in public education. This is something quality public charter schools do well. It is also something, that cash-strapped rural and high need schools across Idaho know all too well themselves. It is well documented that all of public education in Idaho operates on leaner rations than do schools in most parts of the United States. In a 2016 report, "Building Excellence: How Helping Charters Access Facilities Can Improve Opportunities for Idaho Kids," Bellwether researchers found that limited access to financing was one of the major barriers public charter school leaders face in securing a school facility. As a result, charters spend operational dollars on facilities expenses and too often operate in spaces that make it more challenging to offer the educational programming they envision or believe their students need. Idaho policymakers need to address the facilities challenges facing its public schools, both district and charter, across the state. An analysis of recent district and charter school construction project surfaced three key themes: (1) Charter schools' facilities have similar per-square-foot costs, but lower per-seat costs due to compromises and creative shortcuts; conversely, district costs are higher; (2) Districts can have trouble passing bonds/levies due to the supermajority requirement, which demands more from district leaders to explain their requests to taxpayers and earn their support; and (3) There are lessons and insights that districts and charters can learn from each other, but even with the best local practices, there is a larger role for the state to play in funding public school facilities. This report aims to help policymakers assess the nature of the challenges that charter schools and district schools face in financing school facilities. The report begins with an overview of the current status of public school facilities funding in Idaho. It then compares recent charter and district school facilities construction projects, highlighting key differences in cost and amenities. Next, it provides lessons learned from interviewing charter and district leaders about the facilities-related challenges they face. The report concludes with key recommendations for Idaho's legislators to consider as they work to support schools in accessing high-quality facilities. [Foreword by Terry Ryan and Marc Carignan. For "Building Excellence: How Helping Charters Access Facilities Can Improve Opportunities for Idaho Kids," see ED577705.]

The Impact Aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), was originally established in 1950 by P.L. 81-815 and P.L. 81-874, 15 years prior to the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Impact Aid compensates local educational agencies (LEAs) for a "substantial and continuing financial burden" resulting from federal activities. These activities include federal ownership of certain lands, as well as the enrollments in LEAs of children whose parents work or live on federal property and children living on Indian lands. The federal government provides compensation because LEAs are unable to collect property or other taxes from these individuals (e.g., members of the uniformed services living on military bases) or their employers, even though the LEAs are obligated to provide free public education to their children. Thus, Impact Aid is intended to compensate LEAs, in part, for the resulting loss of tax revenue. This report begins with a general overview of the various payments made under the Impact Aid program, followed by a detailed discussion of each section of Title VII as amended by the ESSA. This is followed by information about recent appropriations for Impact Aid. The report concludes with an overview of the "Impact Aid" programs administered by DOD. Tables included in Appendix A provide appropriations data in constant 2018 dollars. Appendix B provides a glossary of acronyms used in the report.

California's K-12 school facilities require significant new and ongoing investments. Funding for facilities comes mostly from local sources, and depends crucially on local property wealth. The state provides some funding for facilities through the School Facility Program (SFP), which usually requires local matching contributions. The authors begin this report by examining historical trends in SFP funding and then look at differences in SFP funding across districts and student demographics. Next, they calculate how much certain student groups are targeted by facility improvements within districts. They estimate the relationship between SFP funding and current facility conditions, examining differences in the level and timing of funding across school sites in the same district that ever received SFP funding. The authors conclude this report with a brief discussion of policy implications and recommendations. [The authors received research support from Joseph Herrera. For the Policy Brief, see ED617948. For the technical appendices, see ED617950.]

This document contains the technical appendices for the report "Equitable State Funding for School Facilities: Assessing California's School Facility Program." Appendices include: (1) Data Sources; and (2) Supplemental Tables and Figures. [The authors received research support from Joseph Herrera. For the full report, see ED617949. For the Policy Brief, see ED617948.]

This study examines how California's system of school facility finance, and the level and distribution of funding for K-12 school facilities, has changed over the decade since 2006. This report addresses five broad questions related to the way California finances its school facility needs: (1) How has California's system of school facility finance evolved over the last 10 years; (2) How has the level of school facility funding in California changed over time and how does it compare to the level of funding in other states; (3) How is funding for new school construction and modernization distributed across school districts; (4) Are disparities in school facility funding systematically related to school district property wealth, income, the share of disadvantage students and the racial/ethnic composition of school districts; and (5) How has school facility funding for charter schools changed over the last decade and how does facility funding for charter schools in California compare to other states? [For the related research brief, see ED588343.]

Research suggests students learn better in classrooms that are modern, comfortable, and safe, but the age and condition of school facilities varies widely across the state. According to a recent estimate, California school districts need to spend between $3.1 billion and $4.1 billion annually just to maintain their existing facilities. Further, the total amount of facility funding needed for California schools during the next decade for modernization and new construction is expected to be about $117 billion. Meanwhile, many observers raise concerns about the state's current policies related to school facility funding. They cite disparities in school facilities conditions and revenues across districts, and argue that the state's school facilities funding system does not target aid toward districts with the greatest facility needs. This study explains California's approach to financing public school facilities and examines the level and distribution of state and local school facility funding since 2006, including facility funding for charter schools. [This brief summarizes the Getting Down to Facts II technical report, "Financing School Facilities in California: A 10-Year Perspective" (see ED588344).]

The National Council on School Facilities is interested in maintaining good quality local, state, and national facilities data that can be analyzed and reported to inform policy, practice, and spending. The "State of Our Schools" 2016 report examined 20 years of school district and state funding for K-12 public school facilities FY1994-2013. The present report updates the building area data and current replacement value data. For each state, school district FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016 data reported to the U.S. Census of Governments is provided. This is followed by a state fact sheet that provides spending and investment data within a standards framework to encourage a solutions-oriented public dialogue on how each state can provide healthy, safe, and educationally appropriate schools for all students. [For the companion report, "State of Our Schools: America's K-12 Facilities 2016," see ED581630.]

This paper studies the effect of oil wealth on the provision of education in the early 20th century United States. Using information on the location and discovery of major oil fields, I find that oil wealth increased local revenue and education spending. The quality of white teachers increased, and oil-rich counties were more likely to participate in the Rosenwald school building program for blacks. In addition, student-teacher ratios for black school children declined substantially. However, I do not find increased school enrollment rates for either race. [This paper was produced as part of the Centre's Labour Markets Programme.]

The Ministry of Educations's goals are to help government achieve the following three commitments to British Columbians: (1) Make life more affordable. British Columbians are counting on government to make their lives easier by containing costs and service fees; (2) Deliver the services that people count on. Government services touch the lives of British Columbians every day, and there is so much more that the Ministry can -- and must -- do to provide these services where and when people need them. Additionally, in many cases, critical programs and services are delivered by Crown Corporations, and the Ministry will work with Board Chairs to improve levels of service to citizens; and (3) Build a strong, sustainable, innovative economy that works for everyone. The government believes that all ministries and public sector organizations have a role to play in supporting broad-based economic growth, developing poverty reduction strategies, and helping create good-paying jobs in every region of the province. This year's Service Plan includes: (1) Minister Accountability Statement; (2) Purpose of the Ministry; (3) Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Performance Measures; and (4) Resource Summary (Resource Summary Table Public Schools and Major Capital Projects).

The Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education provides funding and priority recommendations for Nebraska State College, University of Nebraska, and Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture at Curtis (NCTA) capital construction budget requests, as outlined in Nebraska's Constitution and Statutes. The overarching principle used in this process is to provide safe, functional, well-utilized, and well-maintained facilities that support institutional efforts to provide exemplary programs. Section I of the report provides additional detail regarding ongoing routine maintenance, addressing deferred repair, and renovation/remodeling needs at the State Colleges and University. The Commission recommends continued reaffirmation funding of all partially funded capital construction projects as outlined in Section II. Section III outlines the State College, University, and NCTA capital construction budget requests as submitted by their respective governing board. These requests include Task Force for Building Renewal requests from all institutions and individual capital construction budget requests from the State Colleges. Funding recommendations are provided in Section IV of the report, including recommended funding modifications to several capital construction budget requests. [For the 2015-2017 report, see ED604925.]

The Ministry of Education (British Columbia) will continue to work towards improving outcomes for every learner in their educational system. Through three goals, it will support government priorities including the BC Jobs Plan, BC's Skills for Jobs Blueprint, #BCTECHStrategy, and Taxpayer Accountability Principles, while strengthening the K-12 education system. The three goals are: (1) Personalized, Flexible Education that Enables Students to be Successful; (2) Effective Support for Teachers; and (3) An Effective, Accountable and Responsive Education System. In keeping with the transformation of the education system in British Columbia (BC), the Ministry will periodically review and reconsider the Service Plan goals, objectives and performance measures. The report was prepared in accordance with the "Budget Transparency and Accountability Act." This year's Service Plan includes: (1) Minister Accountability Statement; (2) Purpose of the Ministry; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Strategic Context; (5) Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Performance Measures; and (6) Resource Summary (Resource Summary Table Public Schools and Major Capital Projects).

"Towards Healthy Schools: Reducing Risks to Children" is the fourth in a series of triennial state of the states' reports from Healthy Schools Network and its partners in the Coalition for Healthier Schools, dating from 2006. Previous reports assessed state-by-state environmental health hazards at schools, offered compelling personal narratives from parents and teachers, and provided data needed to assess the subsequent impact on children's health. The last report, "Towards Healthy Schools 2015", went deeper into specific issues such as asthma, and fracking and well water, while also using federal poverty statistics--e.g., the number of children in a school eligible for free or reduced-price meals--as a proxy for poverty and to highlight essential inequities and injustices. It also highlighted how greener, cleaner, healthier schools promote attendance and achievement. Yet, no state publishes information regarding children at risk due to school and/or child care center environmental hazards. To drive home the national scope of the hidden environmental health crisis faced by children, this new report features published media reports on environmental conditions from every state in the nation. From Alabama, where Bay Minette parents threatened to keep their children home to avoid exposing them to asbestos, to Wyoming, where grass fires endangered students at South High, it is a disturbing summary, highlighting the fact that across the country teachers, parents, and guardians, and the children themselves, face numerous and serious unexamined and unaddressed risks to health and learning which are rarely acknowledged by public agencies. [For the 2015 report, "Towards Healthy Schools 2015: Progress on America's Environmental Health Crisis for Children," see ED541346. Support for the narrative introduction was provided by W.K. Kellogg Foundation, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Education Facilities Clearinghouse, The California Endowment, Park Foundation, and Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment. Contributors to the national data, state commentaries, and special topics are acknowledged on pages 4-5 of the PDF.]