Search

Public school districts across California struggle to upkeep and modernize their school facilities. For many districts, aging inventory, coupled with limited capital funding opportunities, has led to school facilities with ballooning deferred maintenance problems and classrooms that do not appropriately support modern instructional practices. These realities also work against California's priorities for high quality, equitable education, childhood health, racial justice, and climate resiliency. In this paper, we investigate adequacy and equity of investment in California's public school facilities. By using a standards-based framework to understand patterns of investment levels, we gauge the likely "good stewardship" of these physical school assets. We look at both "maintenance & operations" (M&O) spending and capital investment by local K-12 public school districts across the state for the years 2009-2019.

As the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, rapidly spread across the globe in Spring 2020, one of the most widely implemented risk reduction measures utilized was to physically close all school buildings. Reopening America's public schools for site-based instruction safely amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (without a vaccine) is remarkably complicated and hotly debated. Operating healthy school buildings is a necessity for doing so. However, the important urgency of having school facilities in good repair is missing from the national debate on school reopening. This brief describes how the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and why mitigation measures are recommended for schools. It argues that it will be more difficult for schools with poor condition facilities to effectively implement the SARS-CoV-2 mitigation measures. As a result, students and staff attending these schools will face greater health risks.

This study provides a critical appraisal of intermediaries in demand-driven workforce development. In San Francisco East Bay, an emerging set of workforce intermediaries -- here called the "Skills Brokers" -- recently take issue in alleged Skills Gaps to create a cross-sector reform agenda. They seek to connect the supply and demand for STEM skills to mediate between the booming technology industries and educational crises. Against the backdrop of structural education-industry interconnections, however, the report suggests a shift in focus. It is argued that the Skills Brokers are valuable in facilitating boundary-crossing collaboration, but their orientation towards employer demands may perpetuate educational inequities while downplaying employer responsibilities. An altered focus on supporting upward-mobility pathways requires a more proactive role by Skills Brokers that scrutinizes and shapes employer demands.

This study investigates the school facility challenges and issues facing rural and small school districts in California. A mixed method approach was utilized (analysis of district characteristics, spending patterns, and 40 interviews with superintendents) to understand the capital investment patterns and facility planning processes of these districts. Using the findings, the report identifies challenges these districts face and concludes with state policy recommendations. [For the full report "Small Districts, Big Challenges: Barriers to Planning and Funding School Facilities in California's Rural and Small Public School Districts," see ED586248.]

In 2017, the California Department of Education (CDE) announced the "Small School District Assistance Initiative," aimed at providing targeted assistance to small and rural school districts in the state. A prime focus of the initiative is assisting small and rural school districts with improving their facilities. To aid CDE's efforts, this study investigates the facility challenges and issues facing rural and small school districts in California. The following research questions are presented: (1) Are rural and/or small school districts at a competitive disadvantage in providing adequate and equitable facilities?; (2) What are the major obstacles rural and/or small districts face in getting state capital funds?; and (3) Given the findings, what changes in state policy and/or regulations might improve the ability of rural and/or small school districts to adequately plan and finance their facilities? A mixed method approach was utilized to understand the capital investment patterns and facility planning processes of rural and small public school districts in California. Findings are presented from analysis of school district data on facility-related characteristics and spending trends. Findings from interviews with 40 rural and small school district officials from across California are presented. They provide a rich understanding of the facility planning and investment challenges experienced by rural and small school districts across California. The findings also provide long term guidance to CDE in amending state policy and regulations, improving technical assistance, and reforming funding formulas to overcome the challenges faced by local school districts in planning and funding their facilities. [For "Small Districts, Big Challenges: Barriers to Planning and Funding School Facilities in California's Rural and Small Public School Districts. Executive Summary," see ED586249.]

This study aims to inform the California Department of Education (CDE) in ensuring the standards contained in Title 5 appropriately promote the planning and design of healthy, safe and educationally suitable K-12 school facilities. The study gathers and analyzes K-12 facility standards in ten case study states across the country to understand state policy trends and best practice in the field. The findings further the development of state policies by providing information about existing policies and standards that promote sound K-12 school facility planning and design. The ten case study states are: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. For each state, an in depth review of state-level school facilities standards and interviews with directors and/or staff in the state program was completed. This report briefly describes the policy and regulatory content of California's Title 5. It then presents summary analysis of the findings focusing on the targeted state policy areas (educational space, minimum essential facilities, indoor human comfort/environmental quality, school site size, planning process, maintenance, and charter schools). The summary analysis identifies lessons from the field on the role of states in setting standards for K-12 facilities planning and design. The report discusses the ways in which the standards structure public accountability and presents implications for California policy based on the findings. A separate Appendix document contains more detailed description of each states' standards in the targeted policy areas and can be found online at http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/school-facilities. Appendix A: Research methods is included in this document. [The research and writing of this report was assisted by Ruth Miller, Mark Leinauer, and Deborah L. McKoy. Appendices are contained in the companion document ED573797.]

The purpose of this study was to inform the California Department of Education (CDE) in ensuring the standards contained in Title 5 appropriately promote the planning and design of healthy, safe and educationally suitable K-12 school facilities. The study gathers and analyzes K-12 facility standards in other states across the country to understand state policy trends and best practice in the field. The findings further the development of state policies by providing information about existing policies and standards that promote sound K-12 school facility planning and design. Researchers looked at ten case study states: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. For each state, an in-depth review of state-level school facilities standards was completed and interviews were conducted with directors and/or staff in the state program. This appendix document contains more detailed descriptions of each states' standards in the target policy areas. Appendix A is included in the full report (see ED573795). Appendix B: Detailed Description of K-12 Facility Standards in the Case Study States; and Appendix C: Full Text of California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (as of January 1, 2016) are presented in this companion document to the full report. [The research and writing of this report was assisted by Ruth Miller, Mark Leinauer, and Deborah L. McKoy. For the full report, "Building Accountability in California: A Review of State Standards and Requirements for K-12 Public School Facility Planning and Design," see ED573795.]

Public school districts across California, particularly those in low-wealth areas, experience significant funding shortfalls for their facilities. Industry benchmarks suggest the state's K-12 school districts should spend nearly $18 billion a year to maintain their inventory, ensure buildings are up-to-date, and to build new spaces to handle enrollment growth. Actual spending often falls far below this level. For example, school districts spent just $12 billion on such needs in 2013. With this study, the UC Berkeley's Center for Cities + Schools aims to inform voters and to provide broad guidance for policymakers regarding the relative merits of various long-term state funding approaches for public K-12 school facilities. Based on California's historical experience, the scale of current needs for K-12 infrastructure investment, and examples from other states, the authors identify four policy scenarios applicable in the Golden State's current political climate: (1) Scenario 1: No State Support; (2) Scenario 2: State Competitive Grant Matching Program; (3) Scenario 3: Small State Role Targeted to High-Need Districts; and (4) Scenario 4: Equity-Focused State Grant Formula. The authors then estimate available facility funding resources for each of the state's more than 1,000 school districts under each scenario. They assess the relative potential impacts in terms of achieving adequacy (ensuring sufficient investment in all school buildings), equity (ensuring access to full facilities funding for all districts), and affordability (limiting state costs, complexity, and legal concerns) for the four scenarios. Several key findings emerge from the analysis: (1) State programs can reduce--but probably not entirely eliminate--unmet school facilities needs in California. Under alternate scenarios those needs are reduced from $7 billion/yr to $4.9 billion/yr; (2) The November 2016 statewide measure (Scenario 2) addresses immediate needs and reduces the level of unmet needs compared to no state action at all (Scenario 1). Such state support would be clearly preferable to funding construction and modernization entirely at the local level in terms of short-run adequacy, statewide equity, and long-term risks to school districts, particularly given current constraints on local revenue generation. Compared to other funding scenarios, though, Scenario 2 does not generate the most adequate, equitable or cost-effective outcomes; and (3) Programs with a limited but targeted state role and greater flexibility around local facilities spending (Scenario 3) can improve overall adequacy at a lower cost to the state. Meanwhile, a larger program equalizing resources on an annual basis (Scenario 4) better achieves adequacy and most reduces disparities between high- and low-wealth districts, but is costlier to state taxpayers. A Methods Appendix is included.

After more than a decade of dedicated investment, state funding to assist local California school districts in the construction, modernization, and maintenance of their school facilities has come to a halt. As the Governor, the legislature, and other stakeholders debate the future of the state's K-12 school facility funding role, a big unknown exists: "Can all California school districts adequately and equitably maintain and modernize their school facilities without dedicated state funding?" The answer to this question should guide policy decisions about the state's school facility funding role. Analysis of facilities spending trends by California school districts shows that, compared to industry standards, there is an ongoing, structural pattern of inadequate and inequitable facility spending in many California public K-12 schools. This trend signals costly long-term consequences, as accumulated facility needs risk becoming a health and safety crisis. Findings in this study include: (1) The majority of school districts underspend on facilities; (2) Wealthy districts spend more on facilities, especially on the capital side; and (3) Districts serving low-income students disproportionately spend more per student on Maintenance and Operations (M&O) from their operating budgets to fund facilities. To reverse the pattern of inadequate and inequitable investment in K-12 public school facilities, four strategic policy reforms should be cornerstones to the approach: (1) Establish stable, dedicated state funds for K-12 school facilities; (2) Distribute K-12 school facility funds equitably, adjusting for local wealth; (3) Improve standards for school facility planning and budgeting; and (4) Establish a California School Facility Database to guide spending. Contains an appendix: Data, Methods and Analytic Approach. [For "Going It Alone: Can California's K-12 School Districts Adequately and Equitably Fund School Facilities? Policy Research Brief," see ED573786.]

K-12 public school facilities need regular investment to ensure student health and safety and support educational programming. Yet, the future of K-12 school facility funding in California is uncertain. A strong state-local partnership has existed that funded new construction, modernization, and other investments in public school facilities across the state since 1998, under the School Facility Program (SFP). The Governor, members of the legislature and other key stakeholders have identified concerns about the state's approach, but they have not yet formulated a consensus going forward on the state role and responsibilities for school district facilities. To inform the school facilities funding policy debate among the Governor, the state legislature and the public, this brief provides an analysis of data on facilities spending by California school districts. It proposes the following principles and descriptions to guide policy decisions about the State of California's facility funding role and provides data-driven indicators that can be used to evaluate the application of the principles: (1) Equity; (2) Local District Effort and Accountability; (3) Fiscal Stability and Predictability; (4) Facilities Adequacy; and (5) Program Simplicity. Finally it offers approaches to a state and local partnership for K-12 facilities that would advance the principles of "equity," "local district accountability," "fiscal stability and predictability," "facility adequacy," and "program simplicity." The following are appended: (1) Data and Methods; and (2) Brief History of the State of California's Funding for K-12 School Facilities. [For the accompanying policy brief, "Guided by Principles: Shaping the State of California's Role in K-12 Public School Facility Funding. Policy Research Working Paper," see ED573774.]

After decades of dedicated investment, state funding to assist local California school districts in the construction, modernization, and maintenance of their school facilities has come to a halt. As the Governor, the legislature, and other stakeholders debate the future of the state's K-12 school facility funding role, a big unknown exists: "Can all California school districts adequately and equitably maintain and modernize their school facilities without dedicated state assistance?" This research brief discusses the following findings from the full report: (1) The majority of school districts underspend on facilities; (2) Wealthy districts spend more on facilities, especially on the capital side; and (3) Districts serving low-income students disproportionately spend more per student on Maintenance and Operations (M&O) from their operating budgets to fund facilities. To reverse the pattern of inadequate and inequitable investment in K-12 public school facilities, four strategic policy reforms should be cornerstones to the approach: (1) Establish stable and dedicated state funds for K-12 school facilities; (2) Distribute K-12 school facility funds equitably, adjusting for local wealth; (3) Improve standards for school facility planning and budgeting; and (4) Establish a California School Facility Database to guide spending. [For "Going It Alone: Can California's K-12 School Districts Adequately and Equitably Fund School Facilities? Policy Research Working Paper," see ED573782.]

The Governor, members of the legislature and other key stakeholders have identified concerns about the State of California's approach to funding K-12 school facilities, but they have not yet formulated a consensus going forward on the state role and responsibilities for school district facilities. To inform the school facilities funding policy debate this policy brief proposes the following principles to guide policy decisions about the State of California's facility funding role and provides an analysis of school facility indicators: (1) Equity; (2) Local District Effort and Accountability; (3) Fiscal Stability and Predictability; (4) Facilities Adequacy; and (5) Program Simplicity. [For the full paper, "Guided by Principles. Shaping the State of California's Role in K-12 Public School Facility Funding. Full Policy Research Working Paper," see ED573775.]

Access to safe, affordable, and convenient transportation shapes the "geography of opportunity" for many children and youth. This study looks at how ?localities across the country are implementing new and innovative alternative approaches to student transportation that expand regional transportation access for K-12 students, improve cost-effectiveness, and leverage inter-agency partnerships beyond the traditional yellow school bus. [For the full report "Beyond the Yellow Bus: Promising Practices for Maximizing Access to Opportunity through Innovations in Student Transportation," see ED558542.]