SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING - STATE AND LOCAL
Information on methods used by state and local governments and school districts to finance school construction, renovation, and repair projects, compiled by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
References to Books and Other Media
California’s K-12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable Communities
Vincent, Jeffrey M.
(Center for Cities & Schools, University of California, Berkeley, Jul 2012)
Report takes a comprehensive look at the state of K-12 school facilities in California, focusing on state-level policies and funding patterns. The recommendations lay out a detailed framework that re-envisions the state’s role in K-12 infrastructure to appropriately support educational outcomes and contribute to sustainable communities through public infrastructure best practices of sound planning, effective management, adequate and equitable funding, and appropriate oversight. 75p
Tax Increment Financing and Chicago Public Schools Construction Projects
(?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education, Jun 2012)
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is one of Chicago’s leading financing tools for development. This white paper examines the nature of TIF funded public school construction projects. The paper begins by categorizing the types of schools receiving TIF revenues for construction projects and where they are located in the city. Next, student and community demographics of these schools are examined to get a sense of the socio-economic characteristics of the groups benefiting from the allocation of TIF revenues. The white paper finds that the TIF program is contributing to income and race/ethnicity place-based inequality in the city of Chicago. TIF financial support for school construction projects is uneven and polarized between high and low-income communities, neglecting the middle.School construction projects funded by TIF revenues favor exclusive schools (selective enrollment schools, charter schools and magnet schools, etc.) while underfunding inclusive neighborhood area attendance schools. This is directly playing a role in the move toward an inequitable, two-tiered public education system. 7p
School Siting and Healthy Communities: Why Where We Invest in School Facilities Matters
Miles, Rebecca; Adelaja, Adesoji; Wyckoff, Mark
(Michigan State University Press, Dec 2011)
In recent decades, many metropolitan areas in the United States have experienced a decline in the population of urban centers and rapid growth in the suburbs, with new schools being built outside of cities and existing urban schools facing closure. These new schools are increasingly larger and farther from residences; in contrast, urban school facilities are often in closer proximity to homes but are also in dire need of upgrading or modernization. This book explores the compelling health and economic rationales for new approaches to school siting, including economic savings to school districts, transportation infrastructure needs, and improved child health. An essential examination of public policy issues associated with school siting, this compiled volume will assist policy makers and help the public understand why it is important for government and school districts to work together on school siting and capital expenditures and how these new outlooks will improve local and regional outcomes. [Authors' abstract]TO ORDER: http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=4268
Schools of the Future Report.
(California Department of Education, Sep 23, 2011)
Key recommendations include: support a future statewide facilities bond measure to fund new construction and modernization projects throughout the state that will invest in students and teachers and create jobs; examine regulations to ensure they are streamlined, promote safe and sustainable schools, and meet the needs of today's students; highlight best practices for school facilities by creating a Web page with links to research on creating learner-centered, safe, sustainable schools that are centers of the community; sponsor legislation to encourage schools to install solar and other renewable energy systems; establish a Green Schools Award. 92p
Healthy, High Performance School Facilities: Developments in State Policy.
(Environmental Law Institute, Jul 2011)
Brief summaries of state laws, executive orders and other formal policies that address healthy, high performance school design and construction. Most of these policies reference either the LEED rating system or the CHPS criteria as the green building standard to be met by covered school construction projects.
Final Report--Audit of Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction's Proposition 1D Bond Funds
(California Department of Finance, Sacramento , Jun 14, 2011)
Reports that the California School Facility Program's (SFP) formal appeals process is not followed when awarding bond funds. This may result in inequitable distribution of bond funds. For the period September 2009 through August 2010, only 6 percent of high risk projects were audited, leaving approximately $4 billion in SFP project costs unaudited. The lack of audits increases the risk of noncompliance with SFP regulations or funds being used for unintended purposes. As of August 2010, OPSC's program data reflects over $5.9 billion in project savings; however, this data may not be reliable because the required LEA annual reporting is unenforced and the data unverified. Project savings are required to be used for future facility projects or returned to the state if not used within three years. OPSC has not determined the extent of project savings which could be used to offset new bond disbursements. Project status tracking and reporting is incomplete and OPSC lacks outcome-based performance measures to assess if the SFP goals are met. 22p.
Auditor's Review of the Operations and Administration of the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization.
(Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, Washington, DC , May 11, 2011)
Reports that the auditor for the District of Columbia office established a procurement contract record management system that did not facilitate a review of school-and project-specific expenditurcs for school facility capital improvements, maintenance, repairs, and operating costs. OPEFM's contract and procurement files did not consistently contain sufficient information to constitute a complete history of contract and procurement transactions. OPEFM did not create or maintain meeting minutes, written summaries of key decisions, lists of project next steps, or reports on the impact that changes in project scopes had on subsequent modernization projects. Finally, OPEFM issued payments to a vendor without a valid contract and assigned managerial functions to a contractor. Individual findings and recommendations are detailed. 46p.
PK-12 Public School Facility Infrastructure Fact Sheet.
(21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC , Feb 2011)
Answers basic school facilities questions such as 1) How much PK-12 infrastructure is there? 2)What condition are our public schools in? 3)What difference does facility condition make? 4)How much does our PK-12 infrastructure cost? 5)Where does funding for PK-12 infrastructure come from? 15 references supporting the information are provided. 2p.
The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design.
Cellini, Stephanie; Ferreira, Fernando; Rothstein, Jesse
(The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v125 n1, Feb 2011)
Estimates the value of school facility investments using housing markets: standard models of local public goods imply that school districts should spend up to the point where marginal increases would have zero effect on local housing prices. The research design isolates exogenous variation in investments by comparing school districts where referenda on bond issues targeted to fund capital expenditures passed and failed by narrow margins. Results indicate that California school districts underinvest in school facilities: passing a referendum causes immediate, sizable increases in home prices, implying a willingness to pay on the part of marginal homebuyers of $1.50 or more for each $1 of capital spending. These effects do not appear to be driven by changes in the income or racial composition of homeowners, and the impact on test scores appears to explain only a small portion of the total housing price effect. [Ahuthors' abstract] p215-261TO ORDER: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.215?cookieSet=1&journalCode=qjec
Alabama Department of Education Capital Plan Report.
(Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, 2011)
Provides a district-by-district summary of school capital improvement plans for Alabama schools. For each project, the type of work to be done (replacement or renovation) is listed, along with a description of the facility, budget, and funding year.
Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2013 Capital Budget and the FY 2013–2018 Capital Improvements Program.
(Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland, 2011)
Presents the recommended fiscal year 2013 capital budge and th FY 2013-2018 capital improvements for this district. The six-year plan addresses overcrowding isssues, reduces the backlog of critical repairs, and keeps the modernization program on track to replace aging facilities.
Under Construction: Improving New Hampshire's School Building Aid Program.
Barrick, Daniel; Delay, Dennis
(New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, Concord , Jan 2011)
Details challenges to state's school building aid program, explains recent legislative changes to the way it is funded, and suggests new options for the future. Since the 1950s, New Hampshire's School Building Aid Program has underwritten the construction and renovation of hundreds of school buildings. But according to our report the cost of the program has outpaced other budget items in recent years and may not be achieving its original goals. The program is expected to cost more than $100 million in the coming biennium, up from $50 million seven years ago. Rather than drawing annual district reimbursements out of the General Fund, the Legislature bonded the payments for FY2009-11, for a total of $131 million. While that decision was made in response to fiscal pressures brought about by the recession, bonding future School Building Aid payments will substantially add to the state's debt burden in coming years. 15p.
A National Study of State Tax Appropriations for Capital Needs in U.S. Public Higher Education
Harris, A. Delphine
(Dissertation, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama, 2011)
This study investigated the relationship of key issues related to capital and operating budget practices of state tax appropriations and policies at the state level, including new facilities construction, renovation, replacement and renewal which may exist between and among states by governance structure. Recognized “good practices” in capital planning and allocation processes and funding mechanisms recommended by experts were also examined.Key findings include: (1) only half (18 out of 39) of responding states have a long range state master plan for facilities; (2) the majority of states do not conduct recommended periodic facilities audits; and (3) the total deferred maintenance has more than doubled from FY1997 to FY2008. Key conclusions include: (1) A major facilities information gap exists, with missing data at the federal and state levels; and (2) From FY1997 to FY2008, while the total US population grew by 36 million or 13.6%, and headcount enrollment in public higher education grew by 22.8%, state tax appropriations for public higher education operating budgets grew by only 21% and in the 18 states that provided data, state tax appropriations for capital budgets increased by 80%. However, this increase is tempered by the low initial amounts of capital appropriations, and the fact that no major federal investments in higher education facilities to spur matching state action to build up public higher education’s physical infrastructure occurred, as did in the Baby Boom era (1965-73). While headcount enrollment increased by 2.5 million or 22.8%, no significant federal investments and only limited state investments in public higher education’s physical infrastructure occurred. All-time record enrollment increases occurred simultaneously to an escalation of deferred maintenance. [Author's abstract] 283p
Financing Community Schools: Leveraging Resources to Support Student Success.
Blank, Martin; Jacobson, Reuben; Melaville, Atelia; Pearson, Sarah
(Coalition for Community Schools, Washington, DC , Nov 2010)
Details five findings from a study of community schools. These are: 1) Community schools use the bulk of their resources to directly assist schools in meeting their core instructional mission, while also strengthening the health and well-being of students, families and neighborhoods. 2) Community schools leverage $3 for every dollar invested by school districts. 3) Collaborative leadership structures support finance and other key functions at the school and system level. 4) A mix of public and private sector partners expands financial, as well as technical and political capacity. 5) Full-time site coordination contributes essential site level capacity at minimal cost. 56p.
State Capital Spending on PK-12 School Facilities.
Filardo, Mary; Cheng, Stephanie; Allen, Marni; Bar, Michele; Ulsoy, Jessie
(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities and 21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC , Nov 2010)
Presents a state-by-state examination of capital outlay funding for elementary and secondary public education facility construction and modernization. The document reports how much capital outlay has been expended by states from 2005-2008, as reported to the U.S. Census of Governments, and surveys every state on what share of these funds were provided from state sources as compared to local sources. Information was collected from from each state's department of education and/or building authority concerning their school facility capital outlay and related capital data management, planning, funding and oversight practice. 67p.
Federal Spending on PK-12 School Facilities.
Filardo, Mary; O'Donnell, Sean
(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC , Nov 2010)
Describes federal grant, tax, and finance programs dedicated to school construction, as well as grant, tax, and finance programs whose funds may be used for school construction. Each program is described in text, accompanied by charts that illustrate amounts allocated to and distributed from those programs in fiscal year 2009, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the federal agencies managing the funds along with how much each agency was allocated. Also discussed and illustrated is the total United States capital outlay for public schools 2005-2008, and sources of operating and capital funding for U.S. schools. The document notes that the federal government considers school facilities a local responsibility, and that there is no staff dedicated to school the issue at the U.S. Department of Education. Twenty-nine links to the programs' websites are provided. 17p.
Selected Laws Relating to the Construction and Repair of Public School Facilities in North Carolina.
(North Carolina Dept. of Public Instruction, Raleigh , Jul 2010)
Focuses mainly on financial concerns covering areas such as bids, sources of state funds, selling or buying school property, bonds, capital outlay funds, and general loan information. Other statutes covered include architectural and engineering services, public contracts, classroom sizes, the duties of local educational and civic authorities, inspections, energy savings contracts, lease properties, long-range facility plans, the North Carolina Historical Commission, facilities guidelines, repair of damage to school property, replacement of buildings, and fire safety. 107p.
Building a Sustained School Facilities Remedy: Arizona's Innovative Blueprint for Capital Funding.
(Columbia University, Teachers College, Campaign for Educational Equity, New York, NY , Jul 2010)
Analyzes the results of Arizona's 1998 school facilities lawsuit, the Students FIRST Act, on the state process for financing and constructing school facilities. The Students FIRST Act was established by Arizona's Legislature to address inequities in the state's system of financing capital improvements for public schools. This Act established Arizona's School Facilities Board. The document explores the Board's progress in funding new school facilities and renovation, and lists funding mechanisms that still need improvements. 40p.
New Jersey Schools Development Authority: Audit Report.
(New Jersey State Legislature, Trenton , Jun 10, 2010)
Raises questions about the 2008 master plan for New Jersey's multi-billion school construction program, saying that some of the school projects in the plan may not have been most critically needed. The report, which covered the time period of July 1, 2007 to Feb. 28, 2010, faults two rules in particular: one that gave priority to projects already underway, and one that made sure each eligible district had at least one project included. The report also briefly details the costs of the master plan. The audit details sunk costs of more than $26 million for eight suspended or replaced projects 16p.
Buildings for Academic Excellence: A Vision and Options to Address Deficient School Facilities in Baltimore City.
Patinella, Frank; Verdery, Bebe
(American Civil Liberties Union of Marylnad Foundation, Baltimore , Jun 2010)
Advocates for improving Baltimore's school facilities, to further promote recent advances in the school system's student achievement. After describing those recent advances, the document continues by describing the current school facilities situation; the negative impact of deficient school facilities; evidence of the positive impact of schools that have been improved; and a discussion of planning; state, local, and federal funding. Case studies of successful schools highlight the report. 44p.
Colorado Statewide Financial Assistance Priority Assessment FY 2009-2010.
(Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board. Colorado Department of Education , Mar 2010)
As a result of the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Act, the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board (CCAB) conducted a Financial Assistance Priority Assessment of public school facilities in Colorado for the period FY2009–2010 to address the considerations set forth in section 22-43.7-107 C.R.S1. The Assessment of approximately 8,419 facilities in 178 School Districts included main buildings, leased buildings, temporary classroom facilities, mini-buildings, school sites, athletic fields, athletic facilities, and other support buildings. Assessment findings are based on the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines as established in 22-43.7-107 C.R.S. that address health and safety issues, education technology requirements, site requirements, energy performance requirements, functionality or suitability issues, capacity requirements, accessibility issues, and historic significance considerations. The Assessment addresses needs for two time periods, the Current Period and the Forecast Period. The Current Period is the present year plus three forward years—in this report 2010–2013. The Forecast Period includes the five years following, 2014–2018. [Authors' abstract] 143p.
Comparing the Level of Public Support: Charter Schools versus Traditional Public Schools.
(New York City Independent Bugdet Office , Feb 2010)
Reports that New York City charter schools receive $300 less per student than district schools, if housed in a public school building, but that charter schools that own their own buildings or lease them receive more than $3,000 less per student in public funding than district schools. Critics counter that charter schools, especially those housed in city-owned buildings, receive many hidden subsidies that either equalize or boost charter school resources above what district schools receive. Because of the complicated ways charter schools and district schools are funded, a fair comparison of how much money district and charter schools actually spend on students is difficult to draw. Questions of how charter schools are funded, and the effect of the city's practice of granting public building space to charters, are currently under heavy public scrutiny. 9p.
The Role of State Courts in Securing School Facility Adequacy and Equity.
Mason, Mary; Arsen, David
(Michigan State University, Education Policy Center, East Lansing , Feb 2010)
Examines the problem of school facility disparities in Michigan and the prospects of litigation to address the problem. The report examines the impact of facilities on students, teachers and communities, and then provides an overview of litigation aimed at state school finance systems across the U.S. Michigan law is then examined, followed by data reflecting the state's capital facilities problem and considerations of how it might be viewed by the courts. 12p.Report NO: Policy Report 31
TO ORDER: http://education.msu.edu
Educational Policy: A Study of the Fiscal Impacts of the College Readiness Program on School Facilities.
Dorris, L. Denae
(Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX , 2010)
Investigates the impact of the Texas' 2006 College Readiness Program on Texas public school construction trends, trends in type of facilities constructed, and financial discretion. Superintendents from 228 Texas public school districts voluntarily participated in an e-mail survey to determine the impact curriculum mandates had on school construction. The findings indicated as school district size increased, the need to construct facilities increased as well. Construction trends indicated 66% of Texas public school districts reported constructing/remodeling science laboratories to fully implement the 4x4 curriculum mandate. While science laboratories dominated the construction, the study confirmed other types of educational facilities were needed as well. Implementing the 4x4 curriculum mandate cost districts on average approximately $500,000. In addition, funding methods differed according to school district size. Larger school districts preferred to employ construction bond elections, while small school districts preferred to use fund balance/reserves to construct facilities. Furthermore, a relationship between school district size and the percentage of the total budget used revealed as school district size increased, the percentage of the budget used to construct facilities decreased. The data from this study indicated, as a result of the 4x4 curriculum mandate, (a) construction trends changed in Texas public schools, (b) trends were apparent in type of facilities constructed, and (c) schools districts experienced a financial impact. [author?s abstract] 22p.
State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority 2009 Annual Report.
(State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Dec 31, 2009)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, significant achievements, capital and maintenance priorities, award recipients, and planning endeavors. 16p.
School Finance: Three States' Experiences with Equity in School Funding.
(U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC , Dec 2009)
GAO reviewed the experiences of three states that reformed their school finance systems, focusing on the: (1) reforms made to each school finance system; (2) legal, budgetary, and political pressures that their state legislatures faced in making the finance reforms; and (3) impact of the legislative remedies in addressing educational funding disparities. GAO found that: (1) lawsuits prompted each state to address the education funding disparities within its district; (2) the legislative solutions in all three states helped poor districts without harming the educational programs of wealthy districts and were sensitive to public sentiments concerning property taxes; and (3) other states undergoing similar education finance reforms should define the equity goals of their school finance systems in terms of the funding needed to achieve a certain level of student performance, link funding reform with greater accountability for student performance, and encourage all groups affected by education finance reform to participate in the decision-making process. 56p.Report NO: GAO/HEHS-96-39
Cehcklists and Step by Step Instructions: Funding, Building and Maintaining Schools in New Mexico.
(State of New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Sep 15, 2009)
Provides step-by-step guidance, checklists, and forms to New Mexico school districts in taking advantage of state resources for school construction. The contents address the planning, funding, project development, construction, and occupancy stages. 134p.
Annual Report on the Status of Alternative Procurement, Project Delivery and Financing for Maryland Public School Construction.
(Public School Construction Program, Baltimore, MD , Sep 02, 2009)
Reports on alternative financing of public schools in Maryland, describing examples of the leasing and adaptive reuse of commercial buildings in Hagerstown and Bel Air, energy performance contracts throughout the state, private developer funding of schools, and in-kind donations. Project procurement and delivery strategies are described as well. 23p.
Building Tennessee's Tomorrow: Anticipating the States Infrastructure Needs July 2007 through June 2012.
(Tennessee Advisory Commission in Intergovernmental Relations, Nashville , Sep 2009)
Reports that, according to local school officials, 91% of local public schools are now in good or excellent condition. However, they estimate the cost to put the remaining 9% in good or better condition at $1.5 billion, which is a $312 million increase from the cost reported in the previous report by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR). They also report that 96% of all schools have sufficient space to house the teachers and classrooms required by the smaller class-size standards imposed by the Education Improvement Act (EIA) in the fall of 2001. The rest use portable classrooms, non-classroom spaces such as libraries and cafeterias, and classrooms that are empty when other teachers have planning periods. TACIR estimates the cost of the remaining classrooms needed to house these teachers at almost $74 million statewide, which is a $27 million increase from the cost estimate in TACIR's last report. Appendices E and F address school facilities. 31p.
Administrative Procedures: Aging School Program, Maryland Public School Construction Program.
(Maryland Public School Construction Program, Jul 2009)
The Aging School Program in Maryland provides state funds to all school systems in Maryland to address the needs of their aging school buildings. These funds may be utilized for capital improvements, repairs, and deferred maintenance work at existing public school buildings and sites serving students. This describes eligible projects and the application process. 19p.
Louisiana Public School Facilities.
(Tulane University, New Orleans, LA , Apr 2009)
Presents statistics on Louisiana school facilities, including expenditures per student and statewide facilities spending that is significantly below the national average, the importance of quality school facilities, and an extremely low percentage of school construction funds being spent on new construction. 4p.TO ORDER: http://www.coweninstitute.com/
School Construction: Meeting the Classroom Building Needs of Florida's Growing Student Population.
(Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton , Apr 2009)
Presents a case study of two Florida counties that have attempted to implement school concurrency, as well as a Nevada county that has taken a different approach to managing the same issue. Through an analysis of documents, interviews and district data, a hypothesized model is tested and modified to present one method of providing adequate classroom space in Florida schools. [author's abstract] 187p.
Quality Schools Facility Grant Program Act.
(Montana State Legislature, Helena , 2009)
Creates Montanas Quality Schools Facility Grant Program, and provides administration and funding for it. The program is funded through timber harvest revenue, mineral royalties, and power site rentals. 13p.
Summaries of State Charter School Facility Laws
(U.S.Department of Education, State Charter School Facilities Incentives Grant Program, 2009)
Some states have passed state charter school facilities laws that provide per-pupil facilities aid for charter schools. This provides summaries of laws from California, District of Columbia, Minnesota, and Utah, including links to the legislation and regulations for each state.
Smart Schools, Smart Growth.
Fuller, Bruce; Vincent, Jeff; Bierbaum, Ariel; Kirschenbaum, Greta; McCoy, Deborah; Rigby, Jessica
(University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Center for Cities and Schools, Berkeley , Jan 2009)
Examines how California's massive and ongoing investment in school construction could better advance the shared goals of school improvement, sustainable urban growth, and equal opportunity. The brief is organized in five parts: 1) a framework for how smart growth principles could help guide school facilities investments, 2) how the $82 billion in bond revenues are being distributed to California's various regions, 3) how a lack of coordinated planning is placed in sharp relief to where people live to how far they travel to jobs, 4) the benefits of high-quality school facilities that accrue to students and teachers, and 5) state policy makers, local educators, and city planners could exercise influential policy levers more wisely. Four communities that are grappling with these challenges in innovative ways and constructing smart schools that build from smart growth principles are highlighted throughout this report.Explores California's current $82 billion school construction investment as an opportunity to advance educational quality and lift local communities. The report urges incorporation of smart growth principles into school facilities construction, more accountability from the State Allocation Board, and investigation into how facility improvement have improved achievement. 37p.
State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority 2008 Annual Report.
(State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Dec 31, 2008)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, significant achievements, capital and maintenance priorities, award recipients, and planning endeavors. 28p.
Economic Crisis Summit: A New Future for Education Funding.
(Association of School Business Officials International, Reston, VA , Dec 2008)
Discusses the impact of the present recession on education funding. The document outlines potential relief in public-private partnerships, venture philanthropy, government intervention, and alternative futures. Advice on planning for a sustainable financial future and immediate steps to take is also offered. 26p.
The Value of School Facilities: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design.
(National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA , Dec 2008)
Analyzes the impact of voter-approved school bond issues on school district balance sheets, local housing prices, and student achievement. The paper uses California's system of school finance to obtain clean identification of bonds' causal effects, comparing districts in which school bond referenda passed or failed by narrow margins. The housing market estimates indicate that California school districts under-invest in school facilities. These effects do not appear to be driven by changes in the income or racial composition of homeowners, and the school bond impact on test scores cannot explain more than a small portion of the total housing price effect. The estimates indicate that parents value improvements in other dimensions of school output (e.g., safety) that may be not captured by test scores. 49p.TO ORDER: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14516
Building Minds, Minding Buildings: School Infrastructure Funding Need, A State-by- State Assessment and an Analysis of Recent Court Cases.
Crampton, Faith; Thompson, David
(American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC , Dec 2008)
Reports on a study that aimed to estimate the current level of school infrastructure funding need in all 50 states, on a state-by-state basis, to compare these estimates to those of a similar 2001 assessment, and to determine the impact of recent court cases that have addressed school infrastructure. The report concludes that the total estimated national need is approximately $254.6 billion, representing a 4.3 percent decrease from 2001. Also examined are the nature and impact of recent court cases that have addressed school infrastructure. Includes major policy recommendations that the federal government assume a strong leadership role and direct funding to states. 82p.
National Impact Fee Survey: 2008.
(Duncan Associates, Austin, TX , Oct 04, 2008)
Summarizes the results of a detailed survey of impact fees that individual jurisdictions across the country are charging. Unlike in-kind developer exactions, impact fees are expressed in dollars and have published fee schedules, making it easy to compare fees charged by different jurisdictions. The results of the survey reveal where impact fees are most common, how much jurisdictions in various states are charging, and the types of facilities for which fees are being charged. Comparisons with surveys from previous years also shows how fees have been changing over time. The survey contains, for each jurisdiction, the amount of impact fees (and similar charges) by type of facility (roads, water, wastewater, etc.) for five typical land use types: single-family detached, multi-family, retail, office and industrial. Residential fees are per dwelling unit; nonresidential fees are per 1,000 square feet of building area. 46p.
Proposed November 4, 2008, Bond Resolution.
(Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education , Jul 31, 2008)
This Los Angeles Unified School District bond proposal also includes correspondence which describes typical repairs and upgrades planned for the schools. These efforts largely address technology infrastructure, accommodation of current educational programming, and "green" strategies. 144p.
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: School Year 2005-06.
(U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC , Jul 2008)
Provides data on revenues and expenditures per pupil made by school districts for school year 2005-06. Median per pupil revenue and expenditure data are reported by state, as well as values at the 5th and 95th percentiles. Information for capital expenditures is included as "Capital outlay" in Table 2. 28p.Report NO: NCES 2008-345
The Complex and Multi-Faceted Nature of School Construction Costs: Factors Affecting California.
Jeffrey M. Vincent and Deborah McKoy
(Ameriacn Institute of Architects, California Council, Sacramento , Jun 2008)
Addresses the void in understanding school construction costs by addressing the factors affecting school construction costs in California, and in what ways these factors compare nationally and in other states. Interviews, focus groups, and policy and statistical analysis are used to compare California and seven comparison states. Findings illustrate the complexity and inconsistency of school construction cost reporting, the need for more systematic school construction cost data collection, and a general lack of systematic research on the subject. 68p.
Linking School Construction Investments to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities.
Vincent, Jeffrey; Filardo, Mary
(University of California, Center for Cities and Schools, Berkeley , Jun 2008)
Links patterns of public school construction investment to equity, smart growth, and healthy community issues. The study builds on previous research that found tremendous growth in public school construction spending nationally, due to: 1) enrollment growth; 2) aging buildings; 3) federal and state mandates; and 4) changes in education. It examines the scale, scope, and distribution of public school facility investment in California and Florida. These two states have had high enrollment growth, have increasingly diverse student bodies, and have been leaders nationally in school construction spending. Also discussed is which communities benefitted from school facility improvements by neighborhood income and racial composition in these two states, as well as what types of school construction has been invested in. The report also suggests that the disinvestment seen in school facilities in lower income and minority urban areas is yet another factor continuing to drive families with children from core cities and older suburbs. These families are seeking better schools for their children and the public investment that helps support them. While educators rightly look at patterns of educational program spending, school construction spending is an important and historically overlooked input that has a multitude of influences on school quality, residential patterns, segregation, and land use. 29p.
An Overview of the State School Facility Programs.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , May 2008)
Describes the variety of California school facilities programs grants, the organization and staffing of the Office of Public School Construction, and the School Facility Program construction process. Charts and tables illustrate education facilities bond programs, the funding process, and a summary of deferred maintenance allocations. 20p.
Housing Aid Reimbursement.
(Rhode Island Dept. of Education, Providence , May 2008)
These instructions and forms demonstrate the manner in which Rhode Island reimburses school districts for repair, renovation, or new construction. Program highlights, rules, and restrictions are also discussed. 19p.
School Facility Program Handbook: A Guide to Assist with Applying for and Obtaining Grant Funds.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , May 2008)
Assists California school districts in applying for and obtaining grant funds for the new construction and modernization of schools under the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. Following a preface and overview, the guides chapters address the involved agencies, project development activities, application for eligibility, new construction funding, charter school facilities, critically overcrowded school facilities, joint use projects, modernization funding, financial hardship, facility hardship grants, program accountability, and additional requirements and features. Appendices provide contact information, forms, and a construction services matrix. 111p.
State Relocatable Classroom Program Handbook.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , May 2008)
Provides information on California's relocatable classroom program and contains the application process, information on preparing for delivery of relocatable classrooms, district responsibilities regarding relocatable classrooms, and documentation required for reimbursements. It also discusses regulations regarding special circumstances such as building plans and alterations, removal/relocation of state relocatable classrooms, and district purchasing or "buyout" of state relocatable classrooms. Furniture and equipment regulations conclude the document. 21p.
Good Buildings, Better Schools: An Economic Stimulus Opportunity with Long-term Benefits.
(Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC , Apr 2008)
Advocates federal spending to improve the condition of school buildings, noting the respective short- and long-term economic benefits of construction industry promotion and an improved learning environment. The document includes an examination of the size and condition of the U.S. school inventory, a discussion of the importance of school facility quality, details on how capital investment in schools can improve local economies and close achievement gaps between low- and higher-income students. Charts illustrate per student maintenance and operation expenditures, as well as construction spending according to school district levels of free and reduced lunch students. Includes 22 endnotes and references. 9p.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Capital Projects Priority Lists.
(Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, Juneau, 2008)
Provides school capital projects priority information for years 2003-2008. Documents online illustrate initial and final project considerations, amounts requested and recommended, and local and state share.
Checklists and Step by Step Instructions: Funding, Building and Maintaining Schools in New Mexico.
(State of New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , 2008)
Provides step-by-step guidance, checklists, and forms to New Mexico school districts in taking advantage of state resources for school construction. The contents accommodate the planning, funding, project development, construction, and occupancy stages. 88p.
Making Charter School Facilities More Affordable: State-Driven Policy Approaches.
(U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC , 2008)
Profiles policy interventions from eight states and the District of Columbia that have been developed to help charter schools address various facilities-related challenges. While the guide does not describe every effort, it details how some jurisdictions have dedicated funding streams to support charter facilities and how others have helped charter school operators access relatively low-cost financing to buy, lease, or renovate school buildings. 78p.
School Facilities Manual for the School Construction Assistance Program.
(Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington , Jan 2008)
Explains activities involved in the planning, design, and construction of successful and cost-effective school facilities in Washington state. Chapters cover advance planning; financing; site selection; educational specifications; consultant selection; school design; bidding, evaluation, and award of construction contracts; the construction, closeout, acceptance, and occupancy process; and planned facility management. Also included is an explanation of the procedures school districts must follow to apply for and receive state funds for school planning, design, and construction. Appendices provide a glossary and addresses for associations and state agencies involved in school facility planning, construction, and finance. 194p.
State of New Mexico, Public School Capital Outlay Council, Public School Facilities Authority, 2007 Annual Report.
(State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Dec 31, 2007)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, significant achievements, capital and maintenance priorities, award recipients, and planning endeavors. 27p.
Advancement Project's Policy Recommendations on Facilities for Preschool and Early Education.
Munger, Molly; English, Steve; Dow, Sharon, Brownson, Kim
(California School Finance, Mountain View , Oct 19, 2007)
Reviews the Project's response to improving student achievement in California schools. The group maintains that there are preschool spaces for only 80 percent of the state's children, that these spaces are unevenly distributed, and that failure to provide universal preschool disproportionately affects those in greatest need. The Project recommends making preschool facilities part of the next statewide bond, as well as a variety of local and state-aided initiatives to acquire land and create facilities for early childhood education. 6p.
Proposed Methodology for Evaluating the Adequacy of State Funding Assistance under the California School Facility Program.
(California Dept. of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , Sep 2007)
Presents the methodology of a California study to determine if new school construction allocations (state assistance grants and local matching contributions) provided to school districts are adequate to build a "complete" new school facility. The study will examine California new school facility construction financing and cost levels from fiscal years 1997 to 2007. New school facility construction projects for elementary, middle and high school will be included in the study for comparison purposes. This study will examine new school construction costs for design, project management, construction, and "other costs" closely related to the actual construction of the school buildings from building design to certificate of occupancy. "Other costs" include testing, inspection, and furniture and equipment. 19p.
Williams v. California: The Statewide Impact of Two Years of Implementation.
(Decent Schools for California , Aug 2007)
Reviews how California's Williams Settlement Agreement and its subsequent legislation, together with action from parents and community members, teachers, school administrators, and school officials altered the state's educational landscape during the first two years of implementation. The first two chapters provide a general summary of key findings, the case, and the settlement legislation. Chapter three discusses the statewide impact of implementation, with special focus on the entire state, as well as on specific geographical regions. Throughout the report, facility improvement information is combined with that for textbooks, materials, and qualified teachers. 62p.
National Impact Fee Survey: 2007.
(Duncan Associates, Austin, TX , Aug 2007)
Summarizes the results of a detailed survey of impact fees that individual jurisdictions across the country are charging. Unlike in-kind developer exactions, impact fees are expressed in dollars and have published fee schedules, making it easy to compare fees charged by different jurisdictions. The results of the survey reveal where impact fees are most common, how much jurisdictions in various states are charging, and the types of facilities for which fees are being charged. The survey contains, for each jurisdiction, the amount of impact fees (and similar charges) by type of facility (roads, water, wastewater, etc.) for five typical land use types: single-family detached, multi-family, retail, office and industrial. Residential fees are per dwelling unit; nonresidential fees are per 1,000 square feet of building area. 46p.
Grossmont Union High School District: Capital Construction Proposition H Bond Program Performance Review.
(Grossmont Union High School District, La Mesa, CA , Jul 31, 2007)
Offers a detailed review of the district's bond program, citing its overall success and making suggestions for improvement. Sections cover progress to date, design team costs, construction management services, analyses of two projects, labor compliance program, and construction cost escalation. 49p.
Building Schools, Building Communities: A Forum on the Role of State Policy in California.
(Center for Cities and Schools, University of California, Berkeley , Jun 2007)
Presents the proceedings of a forum of policymakers and practitioners from across California, along with national experts, examining the wide range of California state policies on school planning, design, and construction, and the ways those policies influence local decisions. Specifically, the forum was convened to understand what California policies and practices influence, promote, and/or hinder: 1) the location and size of new school sites, 2) building shared use and joint use school facilities and/or sites, and 3) innovative school design (especially in relation to location, site size, and use of schools). The report presents the forum's three conclusions and a set of recommendations for each. 33p.
Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2004-05.
(U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC , Jun 2007)
Contains data on revenues and expenditures per pupil made by school districts for school year 2004-05. Median per pupil revenue and expenditure data are reported by state, as well as values at the 5th and 95th percentiles. Data for capital outlay and operations are also included. 22p.Report NO: NCES 2007-355
RIDE School Construction Regulations.
(Rhode Island Dept of Education, Providence , May 24, 2007)
Covers requirements for school construction, with sections detailing the state's authority, purpose, scope, definitions, product categories and priorities, followed by standards for construction, site, space, cost. Procedures and processes for application, approval design, review, regulation enforcement, asset protection, maintenance, housing aid reimbursement, program integrity, closing of schools, and waivers complete the document. 27p.
School Facility Investments in the Washington Metropolitan Area.
(The Urban Institute, Washington, DC , Apr 2007)
Analyzes patterns of investment for public school construction in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from 1995 to 2004. The greatest investment was for new school construction in the outlying suburbs. Spending increased over time throughout the region, led by large increases in renovation construction expenditures within the District of Columbia. Schools with high proportions of minority and low-income students received less investment on average. 23p.
Financing School Facilities in California.
(Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice. , Mar 2007)
Reviews California's system of school facility finance. Along with describing that system, it examines the state's investment over time and provides an analysis of the relationship between the revenues available to school districts and various district characteristics. The study explores how the level of school facility funding changed over time and how it compares to the level of funding in other states, how school facility funding is distributed across school districts, the primary causes of inequities in school facility funding across districts, if funding is reaching those districts with the greatest facility needs, how charter schools obtain funding for school facilities, and the special issues related to charter school facility finance. 4p.
A Year of Reform and Rededication: New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation 2006 Annual Report.
(New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, Newark , 2007)
Presents a report of the Corporation's work in calendar year 2006. The Corporation is charged with ensuring that the state complies with court mandated full funding of school construction in areas of greatest need, to partial funding in less impoverished areas. The report describes the Corporation's structure and significant reforms made during the year, as well as highlighting projects in the disadvantaged "Abbott Districts." Grant totals for each county are also reported. 25p.
California Educational Facilities Authority 2006 Annual Report.
(California Educational Facilities Authority, Sacramento , 2007)
Highlights the Authority's activity for the 2006 calendar year. In total, the Authority approved seven applications and closed eight financings, issuing more than $402 million in debt. As a result of these financings, CEFA borrowers accessed more than $191 million in new money for on-campus capital projects. A partial list of these projects includes student housing, biology and business buildings, science and research facility construction, library and campus parking, and renovation of existing facilities. CEFA borrowers were able to capitalize on low interest rates by refinancing $211 million of prior debt, thus achieving a total net present value savings of approximately $26.3 million. 16p.
California School Finance System: Facilities Funding.
(California School Finance, 2007)
For the most part, funding for the construction and repair of California's school facilities is separate from funding for operations. The bulk of capital costs are paid for through public bonds. This describes the major sources of facility funds: general obligations bonds; developer fees; facility districts; maintenance funding; and obligations under the Williams settlement.
Closing America's Infrastructure Gap: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships.
(Deloitte Research , 2007)
Reports on the increase in public/private partnerships to fund infrastructure needs, describing the benefits and challenges of these mechanisms. For school construction, the typical models for private financing are cited, as are the experiences of the United Kingdom, which has the world's largest and most advanced public-private partnership program. Recent advances in state legislation alternative financing for school construction are noted. 42p.
Colorado's Crumbling Classrooms
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, 2007)
Presents the Donnell-Kay Foundation's assessment of Colorado school conditions, done in the absence of any statewide assessment. The backlog of maintenance, inability of some districts to fund their schools, and lack of state funding are highlighted. Profiles of specific districts' school physical condition, educational suitability, technology readiness, site condition, and capacity are included.
Comprehensive State Facility Programs.
(Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO , Jan 2007)
Summarizes the attributes of statewide school facility funding programs in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming. These programs, typically created as a result of lawsuits, are designed to distribute more school construction funding to low-property-wealth school districts. 3p.
Concerning the Creation of the "Public School Facilities Act" to Address Capital Construction in Colorado Public Schools, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.
(General Assembly of the State of Colorado, Denver , 2007)
This Colorado legislation establishes an advisory committee within the department of education to develop facility and safety priorities to be used in assessing applications for grants of capital construction moneys to school districts. It is intended to help ensure that funds will be used in completing high-quality construction projects, grant priority assessment of the school buildings and facilities in certain school districts, and assist school districts and the state in appropriately and efficiently allocating funds for school facilities. 13p.
Current California Facilities Funding.
(California School Finance, 2007)
California voters have approved a number of statewide and local bond measures to help build and maintain school facilities. However, the state’s Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) projects a continuing need for more funds. This describes state bond proceeds, local general obligation bond results, facility district bonds that have passed, and projected needs for facilities funding.
Layers of Debt: Trends and Implications for New York's Local Governments.
(Office of the New York State Comptroller, Albany , 2007)
Details the growth of New York state local debt from $16.9 billion in 1995 to $32.8 billion in 2005. Of this amount, 47% is school district debt, which more than tripled from $4.2 billion to $15.6 billion during this period. These increases were largely driven by State reimbursement formulas that encourage schools to borrow for capital projects and stretch out debt. As a result, school districts' share of the outstanding total local government debt has nearly doubled, up from 25 percent issued in 1995. 28p.
Regulations Relating to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998: (School Facility Program)
(California Dept. of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2007)
These regulations include a description of the High Performance Incentive Grants available to California schools for more energy and resource efficient "green" classrooms. These regulations implement the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which establishes a State program to provide State per pupil funding for new construction and modernization of existing school facilities. The regulations include a High Performance Rating Criteria, which will be used to determine the high performance attributes in a project and to assign a score that will directly correlate to the increased amount of funding a project receives. The high performance grants will provide incentives of between 2-10 percent of the base grant for high performance facilities. 115p.
Subpart 18 - Healthy, High-Performance Schools.
(U.S. Dept. of Education, Washington , 2007)
This portion of federal legislation outlines terms of federal grants to states that can be used to develop healthy, high performance schools. 3p.
The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma.
(Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA , 2007)
Addresses the issues of school funding through property taxes in an era where taxpayers are increasingly opposed to this mechanism. Chapters of the report explain the link between property taxation and school funding, provide case studies from seven states, and then discuss property tax, school funding, and state education aid myths. Recommended and not recommended polices are offered, along with 148 references and legal citations. 66p.
State of New Mexico, Public School Capital Outlay Council, Public School Facilities Authority, 2006 Annual Report.
(State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Dec 31, 2006)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, capital and maintenance priorities, award recipients, preventive maintenance accomplishments, and planning endeavors. 28p.
Public School Facilities: Providing Environments That Sustain Learning.
Hunter, Molly A.
(National Access Network, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, Nov 2006)
This issue brief on school facilities financing policies discusses the obstacles that impair efforts to build and maintain schools that are conducive to learning, including state funding systems that rely heavily on local bonds and provide incentives to build schools cheaply and defer maintenance, and state policies that limit funding specifically for their facilities. This also addresses rising facilities costs, inadequate schools in urban and rural districts, and recent court rulings. 4p.
Planning for School Facilities Can Be Improved to Better Serve the Needs of All Students.
(Legislative Research Commission, Frankfort, KY , Oct 12, 2006)
Addresses accessibility and growth issues for Kentucky schools. The report examines relevant best practices, as well as useful examples of relevant facilities-related policies and procedures in Kentucky and other states. The formula for local and state sharing of capital expenses is examined, along with procedures incumbent upon the school district. The evolution of school accessibility, beginning with laws implemented in 1977 is addressed, as are the expanded requirements of the 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act and expectations of bringing all schools into compliance. Best practices for school facilities construction, recommendations by the Building Educational Success Together (BEST) organization, and profiles of 21 states selected for their potential use by Kentucky as examples to consider for their practices of long-range planning, needs assessment, capital improvement planning, comprehensive maintenance planning, technical assistance, and planning for and maintaining accessibility are included. 120p.Report NO: Research Report 341
Model Policies in Support of High Performance School Buildings for All Children.
(Building Educational Success Together (BEST), Washington, DC , Oct 2006)
Provides policy guidance to states for building and maintaining high-quality schools. The report identifies key areas needing attention, and covers school facilities and community planning, schools as centers of communities, public school facilities management, and public school facilities funding. Challenges, policy intent and rationale, and model policies are described under each topic, with examples of exemplary state legislation for each topic provided as well. 44p.
Safety, Growth, and Equity: School Facilities.
Raya, Richard; Rubin, Victor
(Policylink, Oakland, CA , Oct 2006)
Examines the role that some states are taking to resolve school facility inequities between wealthy and poor districts. Litigation, standards and assessment, targeting of high-need areas, increasing overall funding, and joint-use arrangements are addressed. Includes 26 references. 10p.
Massachusetts School Building Authority School Building Grant Program.
(Massachusetts School Building Authority, Boston , Sep 2006)
Covers the authority and constitution of the Program, with sections detailing the program's authority, applicability, scope, purpose, definitions, general requirements, general site and school construction standards, site standards, educational program space standards, cost standards, project management, payment and audit procedures, and waivers. 34p.
Third Report to the Governor by the Interagency Working Group for School Construction.
(Education Law Center, Newark, NJ , Sep 14, 2006)
Recommends that the New Jersey legislature authorize an additional $2.5 billion for school facilities projects in New Jersey's urban or "Abbott" districts, along with $750 million for projects in suburban, rural and other districts across the state. The report, however, conditions the new funding on the adoption of a "Strategic Plan" by the state School Construction Corporation (SCC). The report presents a new method for prioritizing Abbott projects for funding, including those now stalled because of a lack of funds, and suggests changing the way in which state funding for construction would be allocated to projects in non-urban school districts. The report recommends the Legislature consider moving from guaranteed grants covering at least 40 percent of a community's construction costs to annual aid for debt service on local bonds. 30p.TO ORDER: http://www.edlawcenter.org/
Apple Awards Capital Project: Guidance Manual.
(Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington , Sep 2006)
Provides guidance for Washington's Apple Award Construction Achievement grants, a program that rewards schools improving their achievement on state tests with grants for capital improvement projects conceived by the students. Program procedures; instructions for project planning, proposal preparation and submission; and forms are included. 34p.
2005 Indiana School Construction Annual Report.
(Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finances, Indianapolis , 2006)
Compares the sizes and costs of Indiana school building projects to national costs and sizes for 2004 and 2005, revealing that Indiana's costs were 40.4 percent higher than the national average in 2005. The report also examines the statewide impact of school construction debt on taxpayers and analyzes the types of school construction and distribution of construction costs. 12p.
Guidelines for Program for the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds by Missouri School Districts.
(Missouri State Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO , Jul 12, 2006)
This program provides credit enhancement and helps Missouri school districts in need of educational facilities achieve a low borrowing cost and other favorable borrowing terms. This report presents: program considerations (basic program requirements and program credit considerations); certain considerations only as to pool financings; and certain considerations only as to conventional bond financings. Four attachments include: the application for involvement in the Authority Program regarding the issuance of school district bonds; a direct deposit agreement; an operations procedures memorandum; and a termination of direct deposit agreement. 22p.
State of Maine Board of Education Chapter 61: Rules for Major Capital School Construction Projects.
(Maine Dept. of Education, Augusta , Jul 11, 2006)
Defines the conditions under which this state will subsidize major capital school construction. A list of definitions is followed by sections that provide project flow, form submission, and deadline information; a project rating system and evaluation information; a description of the school construction eligibility and approval process; advice on site selection; and concept, design, and funding approval. 29p.
Public-Private Partnerships for Schools. North Carolina Senate Bill 2009.
(North Carolina General Assembly, Jul 2006)
This bill authorizes North Carolina's local boards of education to enter into capital leases of real or personal property for use as school facilities. A capital lease entered into under this section may provide that the private developer is responsible for providing, or contracting for, construction, repair, or renovation work. The bill was signed into law on July 19, 2006.
Safe and Adequate: Using Litigation to Address Inadequate K-12 School Facilities.
Sciarra, David; Bell, Koren; Kenyon, Susan
(Education Law Center, Newark, NJ , Jul 2006)
Explores the significance of the school facilities funding issue through case studies of “comprehensive” and “focused” approaches in nine states that have experienced school funding adequacy litigation. In the comprehensive approach, a state’s overall school financing system was challenged. In the focused approach, the method of financing facilities was the sole object of the challenge. Cases of both types reveal that, regardless of the particular legal approach used, school finance litigants have been effective in their utilization of facilities evidence to address capital deficiencies and courts have responded, recognizing facilities improvements as central component of educational opportunity. The document details each state’s litigation and provides summaries of the respective legislative response to date. In three states that experienced a comprehensive challenge to school funding formulas, the courts used the facilities issue to initiate their broad-based adequacy analyses and to determine, in the first instance, that the entire school funding scheme was constitutionally infirm. 45p.
Administrative Procedures Aging School Program Public School Construction Program.
(Maryland Public School Construction Program, Baltimore , Jun 2006)
Details the Maryland Aging School Program's eligible and ineligible projects and expenditures, the application and project approval process, and procedures for procurement and contract awards. 14p.
Dekalb County School System SPLOST II Forensic Program Review: Preliminary Report of Findings and Recommendations.
(Dekalb County School System, Decatur, GA , Jun 2006)
Presents the results of an audit of the County's school construction program that offered 11 major conclusions in regard to program management and oversight by the school system administration and board of education. The auditors reviewed in particular detail perceived problems including an understated needs assessment, approval of projects for which there was inadequate budget, performance by the program manager under its contract, and a school system policy of allocating to each school cluster 40 percent of its 10-year assessed needs and allowing it to decide how to use the funds. The report also provides 19 recommendations relating to policies, processes, contracting, staffing, systems, communications and best practices. 75p.
The Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002. Procedures. [Virginia]
(Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond , May 2006)
Provides guidance for submission and completion of projects under Virginia's Public-Private Educationl Facilities and Infrastructure Act.The intent of this statute is to provide a vehicle for Virginia's state and local agencies to create public-private partnerships to meet a wide range of infrastructure needs, including such as construction and renovation of elementary and secondary schools, as well as higher education facilities. The Virginia Act is structured to reduce the time and money spent by the submission of projects to extended boards of review, encourage entrepreneurial activity on the part of the private sector, tailor a project to the particular needs of the user, and encourage the innovative use of tax-exempt and taxable project financing. 31p.
North Carolina Public Schools Facility Needs Survey.
(Public Schools of North Carolina, Raleigh , Apr 2006)
Every five years, local North Carolina boards of education are required by G.S. 115C 521(a) to submit their Facility Needs Assessment (long range plans) to the State Board of Education. The results of this survey assess projected facility needs for the next 5-10 years, and is used statewide and locally. Total estimated costs are $9.7 billion. 7p.
Issue Analysis: Are Impact Fees a Viable Resource for School Districts Experiencing Growth?
(Duncan Associates, Austin, TX , Spring 2006)
Focuses on the growing student enrollment for M.R. Elementary, a Pre-K through 8th grade elementary district. M.R. Elementary is experiencing this growth due to four new subdivisions that will be built over the next ten years. The subdivisions are located on the northwest side of the small city of Lichfield and will create 400 new dwellings. This type of fast growth is expected to create a financial strain from the additional students moving into those homes. The district will not receive General State Aid (GSA) and local tax revenue from growth in Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) upon their enrollment for approximately two years per student, which will create an educational fund hardship. 6p.
Where Is the Money? Finding Facilities Funds.
(COLBI Technologies, Inc., Tustin, CA , Apr 2006)
Describes local, state, and federal funding options for school facilities in California. Local funding sources described includes bonds, school facilities improvement districts, developer fees, community facilities districts, parcel taxes, redevelopment areas, certificates of participation, and lease-lease back. State funding sources include the School Facilities Program, State Emergency Repair Program, State Relocatable Classroom Program, Deferred Maintenance, Facilities Hardship, Pre-School Modernization, and Library Bonds. Federal sources include Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB's), E-Rate funds, and brownfields cleanup funds. 13p.
A Review of School Facilities Programs and Analysis of School Facility Needs.
(Maine State Dept. of Education, Augusta , Mar 2006)
Provides descriptive information on each of the four central components of Maine's school facilities program: major capital school construction, school revolving renovation program, leased space program, and facilities maintenance and capital asset management program. Each program description is accompanied by historical data reflecting funding and work priorities. 37p.
Annual Report: School Facilities Construction Program FY 2005.
(New Jersey Dept. of Education, New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, Trenton , Feb 15, 2006)
Reports on school construction activity by New Jersey Department of Education and the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation for the year ending June 30, 2005. The report includes the number of school facilities approved and constructed, the amount of time that it took to complete finished projects, the aggregate principal amount of bonds issued by the state for its share of the costs, the number of approved projects which exceed facilities efficiency standards, how the efficiency standards were exceeded, and recommendations for changes in the school construction program. 98p.
A Review of the School Facilities Construction Commission. [Kentucky]
(Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Frankfort , Feb 10, 2006)
Analyzes the impact of Kentucky's School Facilities Construction Commission (SFCC) and other facility funding programs in the state. The study includes a review of school district facility needs assessment procedures, methods of calculating construction and renovation costs, and opinions of school superintendents and others of the SFCC and facility funding in Kentucky. Numerous figures illustrate levels of school facility funding, school condition ranking, per-pupil revenue, and costs per square foot. 131p.
Breaking the Fall: Cushioning the Impact of Rural Declining Enrollment.
(Rural School and Community Trust, Arlington, VA , Feb 2006)
Highlights the role that state educational policies have in either magnifying the challenges of declining enrollment, or conversely, mitigating them. The report contains 20 policy recommendations, primarily focused on state funding formulas, but also on state support for facility projects, technology, and cooperative arrangements, as well as strictly local control over consolidation, without state incentives or interference. The recommended state and local policies can buy time and give communities and economies time to rebound and/or adjust to population and revenue loss. 17p.
Facilities Funds/Facilities Assistance.
(Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO , 2006)
Summarizes facilities funding and assistance offered by the 40 states that have enacted charter school laws. Each summary includes types of school district property that a charter school may occupy and at what costs, and types and amounts of grants and loans that charter schools may obtain to build or renovate facilities. 4p.
Mayoral Leadership and Involvement in Education: An Action Guide for Success.
(United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC , Jan 2006)
Assists mayors with understanding educational issues that may affect their cities, provides strategies to assist them in getting involved in education, and conveys information about school finance and management. 35p.
Necessity of School Construction.[Rhode Island]
(Rhode Island Dept. of Education, Providence , 2006)
Presents the Rhode Island Department of Education's guidelines for preparing the "necessity of construction" application, which is the process by which local districts request state reimbursement for school construction and certify that projects are necessary. The four sections of the document require the district to summarize the project, describe the planning activities that went into it, detail the physical project, and justify the project. Appendices offer advice on moving smart school goals forward, with guidelines for planned enrollments, new buildings, site selection, square footage, cost per square foot, and a sample capital improvement program. 21p.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2005-2006.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2006)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, joint use, critically overcrowded schools, energy conservation, charter schools, Williams Settlement programs, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 54p.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission 2005 Annual Report.
(Ohio School Facilities Commission, Columbus , 2006)
Describes the funding, management oversight, and technical assistance provided by the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) to meet Ohio school district construction and renovation needs for fiscal year 2005. The report highlights the work of the OSFC programs for urban schools, planning for the future, school safety, and partnering. A statewide district-by- district summary of Commission work completed or in progress is included. 32p.
State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority Annual Report.
(State of New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , Dec 31, 2005)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, capital and maintenance priorities, award recipients, planning endeavors, and partnering endeavors. 23p.
The Williams v. California Settlement: The First Year of Implementation.
(American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Los Angeles , Nov 2005)
Reviews how California's Williams Settlement Agreement and its subsequent legislation, together with action from parents and community members, teachers, school administrators, and school officials altered the state's educational landscape during the first year of implementation. The first section provides a general summary of the case and the Settlement Legislation, breaking down the approximately $1 billion in new funds and describing how the new legal standards for instructional materials, school facilities, and teachers apply to all public schools. The facilities section explains how the new "good repair" and "emergency facilities needs" standards were developed through regulations and how the overlapping accountability systems in this area improved school facility conditions around the state. 54p.
Building for the Future: The School Enrollment Boom in North Carolina.
(John Locke Foundation, Raleigh, NC , Sep 2005)
Discusses the inadequacy of even the largest school bond revenues in addressing rapid growth in North Carolina school districts, advising instead that districts employ cost-effective construction, renovation, and maintenance solutions that are taxpayer-friendly and enhance educational opportunities. Public-private partnerships to finance new construction, adapting and reusing buildings, rethinking design standards, revising financing policies for stadiums and sports facilities, building modular schools, and using virtual schools are discussed, as are innovative project management techniques. 22p.
Recommendations for a State School Capital Funding Program in Colorado.
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, Denver, CO , Aug 2005)
Details numerous recommendations to resolve inequity in the state's school capital, including conducting a statewide facility assessment; adopting statewide minium standards for building adequacy, health, safety, and condition; the founding, staffing, and duties of a capital construction oversight board; funding to address serious backlogs in an order indicated by the assessment, and for continued capital improvement; and the makeup of revenues to be used in capital school construction. Four possible revenue and funding options, derived from how Colorado's taxation system works and what has worked in other states, are analyzed. Finally the report examines the statewide school capital construction programs in other states, especially Colorados neighbors Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. 35p.
Understanding Equitable Infrastructure Investment for California.
Pastor, Manuel; Reed, Deborah
(Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco , Jun 02, 2005)
Addresses equitable distribution of infrastructure funding in California, including school facilities. Recent state bonds show promise, but a lack of a comprehensive statewide school facilities assessment makes it impossible to prioritize projects. 61p.
Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities, Section 4: Public School Facilities Funding Policies.
(21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC , May 2005)
Provides policy guidance and recommendations to officials and administrators at the state, local, and school district level to improve facilities funding. Policy recommendations cover long-term funding sources, the scope and form of funding relationship between state and local school districts, funding allocation for school building improvements and/or new construction and alternative financing methods. Best practices examples and a list of resources are also provided. 19p.
The Charter School Facility Finance Landscape.
Page, Barbara; Balboni, Elise; Chae, Clara; King, Katje
(Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Educational Facilities Financing Center, New York , May 2005)
Provides a national directory of private nonprofit and public providers of funding and financing for charter school facilities. Based on research and interviews with over 50 charter school stakeholders, the survey includes descriptions of financing products and geographic markets for the 21 private nonprofit providers currently active in the sector. The report also describes two public-private partnerships that have recently been developed in Indianapolis and Massachusetts. Public initiatives are also detailed, including explanations of and awardee information for two federal grant programs, three federal tax credit/bond financing programs, and an listing of state-level funding, loan, and credit enhancement programs currently authorized in the 41 jurisdictions with a charter law. The report includes available web site and statutory references, with active links in the electronic version. 24p.
Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Funding Act.
(State of Arkansas 85th General Assembly, Little Rock , Apr 05, 2005)
2005 school funding legislation that includes the Academic Facilities Wealth Index. The Index will be used to determine the amount of the school district's share of financial participation in a local academic facilities project eligible for state financial participation. This calculation is based on data available June 17, 2005, and will be updated if the underlying data is updated. 31p.
DC Public School and Public Charter School Capital Budgeting.
(21st Century School Fund and Brookings Greater Washington Research Program, Washington, DC , Apr 04, 2005)
Analyzes District of Columbia Public School and Charter Public School capital projects, budgets, and expenditures, presenting the history of facilities planning and budgeting in the District, and the complexities introduced by the advent of Public Charter Schools. The District's educational system features schools in serious disrepair, declining enrollment, underutilized schools, and burgeoning charter schools searching for facilities. Other District public services are in similarly inadequate facilities, and co-location is clearly indicated. Policy challenges for the District, with its complex planning environment and fiscal constraints, are proposed and discussed. 51p.
Capital Requirements Survey. [Colorado]
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, Denver, CO , Apr 2005)
Presents the results of a privately-funded survey of the superintendents and facilities managers of 178 Colorado school districts, with about 59% of the states student population represented in the responses. The report details building ages, construction types, occupancy vs. capacity, physical condition, and educational adequacy. Facilities managers reported about $2.1 billion in capital needs, and superintendents reported about $297 needed for deferred maintenance. Based on enrollment in the districts responding, a capital need of about $5.7 billion and deferred maintenance need of $1.3 billion is estimated. 34p.
Act Concerning the Use of Public-Private Partnerships by School Districts [Arkansas]
(State of Arkansas Senate Bill 858 , Mar 2005)
Defines "public-public partnership" as a contractual agreement between a school district and another governmental agency, political subdivision, or institution of higher education to meet a clearly defined need for facilities, infrastructure, or goods and services. Authorizes any school district to use public-public partnerships as a project delivery method for the building, altering, repairing, improving, maintaining, or demolishing of any structure, or any improvement to real property owned by the school district. 2p.
CDE Capital Construction Program.
(Colorado Dept. of Education, Denver , Feb 2005)
Details processes and requirements for requesting project funds from various state and federal funding sources administered by the Colorado Department of Education. Six major programs are detailed, accompanied by contact information, sample forms, frequently asked questions, and historical funding information. 148p.
Colorado's Crumbling Classrooms.
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, Denver, CO , Feb 2005)
Provides a summary of information about Colorado's current capital funding needs. 2p.
Financing Excellence in the District of Columbia Public Schools.
(Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, DC , 2005)
Reports on excess capacity in the District of Columbia Public Schools, with the District having 459 students per building, compared to 682 in 45 other urban school systems studied. That difference contributed to higher costs, with $1,083 per student for maintenance and facilities costs in 2004-05, compared with $603 per student in the other urban districts; $525 per student for energy and utility costs, compared with $191 in the other systems; and $714 per student for school administrative personnel, compared with $582 in the other cities. Only 32 percent of the District's per-pupil spending went toward classroom instruction, compared with an average of 42.7 percent in the other systems, the study found. The report recommends that D.C. school officials "resize" the number of buildings and employees in the system and invest the savings in after-school tutoring and other programs designed to boost dismal student achievement. Without suggesting how much space should be eliminated, the study said the system could save $500,000 to $1.5 million a year for every building it closes. 173p.
Guidance for Review of School Building Project Financing. [Indiana]
(Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance, Indianapolis , 2005)
Provides Indiana school officials with the parameters within which the state will evaluate local school construction project financing. The guidance indicates how projects will be assessed under state legislation, detailing considerations such as square footage per student, enrollment patterns, age and condition of current facilities, cost per square foot, and effect of the project on local tax rates. 15p.
How Colorado Funds K-12 Capital Construction.
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, Denver, CO , 2005)
Describes the history, function, and limits of Colorado's state and local funding instruments for school construction. 4p.
Responsibility+Results+Renewal=the 3R's of School Construction: New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation 2004 Annual Report.
(New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, Newark , 2005)
Presents a report of the Corporation's work in calendar year 2004. The Corporation is charged with ensuring that the state complies with court mandated full funding of school construction in areas of greatest need, to partial funding in less impoverished areas. The report describes the Corporation's responsibilities, highlights statistics illustrating successes in school facility improvement in 2004, and reports the years grant totals for each county. 20p.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2004-2005.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2005)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, joint use, critically overcrowded schools, energy conservation, charter schools, Williams Settlement programs, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 66p.
State of Indiana School Construction Annual Report 2003-2004.
(State of Indiana, Department of Local Government Finance, Indianapolis , 2005)
Compares the sizes and costs of Indiana school building projects to national costs and sizes, examines the statewide impact of school construction debt on taxpayers, presents historical data on Indiana school construction, and establishes benchmarks for local officials to use in guiding their own projects. The data is divided into figures for new buildings, additions, and renovations. 9p.
Taking Care of Colorado's Schoolhouses.
(Donnell-Kay Foundation, Denver, CO , 2005)
In Colorado, school buildings have traditionally been considered the responsibility of local districts. Although Colorado ensures that operating revenue for public education is roughly equal for every child in the state, funding for school building construction, maintenance and repair is still based almost exclusively on local district wealth. The result is that, according to one study, 88% of Colorado’s schools are not in good physical condition. According to the Colorado state auditor’s office, Colorado needs $4.7 billion to bring its schools into good condition. This summarizes a project by the Donnell-Kay Foundation to examine the condition and funding of Colorado’s school buildings. 3p.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission 2004 Annual Report.
(Ohio School Facilities Commission, Columbus , 2005)
Assesses the funding, management oversight, and technical assistance provided by the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) to meet Ohio school district construction and renovation needs for fiscal year 2004. The report highlights progress in the following OSFC programs: Classroom Facilities Assistance, Urban Initiative, Exceptional Needs, Expedited Local Partnership, Emergency Assistance, Energy Conservation, Federal Emergency Repair, Community School Guaranteed Loans, and Extreme Environmental Contamination. The report also includes information about OSFC's Design Manual, technology, and partnering efforts, as well as comparative financial data on each of its programs and Ohio capital appropriations for school facilities. 23p.
California's K-12 Public Schools: How Are They Doing?
Caroll, Stephen; Krop, Cathy; Arkes, Jeremy; Morrison, Peter; Flanagan, Ann
(The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA , 2005)
Documents the decline of California public schools in various areas since the 1970's. There has been substantial progress in meeting the state's facility needs in the last decade, largely due to recent state and local general obligation bonds. However, California still lagged the nation and other large industrial states in this area, with responses to facility needs being concentrated in urban and rural areas serving high minority and low-income populations. Data to document the most recent progress in facilities is not currently available. Includes 157 references. 216p.
Ending School Overcrowding in California: Building Quality Schools for All Children.
Colmenar, Raymond; Estrada, Francisco; Lo, Theresa; Raya, Richard
(PolicyLink, Oakland,CA , 2005)
Reports that the state currently targets school construction funds for anticipated growth districts, but not to relieve overcrowding. Even though the 2002 Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS) represents progress, the report maintains that districts contending with fiscal and administrative restraints are at a disadvantage in competing for the funds. The report defines the problem of overcrowded schools, explains the funding gap, cites barriers to addressing school overcrowding, and makes recommendations for removing them. 24p.
Arkansas Statewide Educational Facilities Assessment-2004.
(Arkansas General Assembly, Task force to Joint Committee on Educational Facilities, Little Rock, AR , Nov 30, 2004)
Summarizes the state's 2004 assessment of its 6,569 permanent school buildings, with tables displaying numbers of school by type, facility conditions, educational suitability, enrollment growth projections, and associated cost summaries. The cost of addressing current needs of all buildings was determined to be $2.9 billion, with a projected cost over five years of $ 4.5 billion. 71p.
HJR 105: Joint Subcommittee to Study the Level of Assistance to Localities Necessary for Developing Adequate K-12 School Infrastructure. [Virginia]
(Virginia Division of Legislative Services, Richmond , Sep 21, 2004)
Report of a subcommitee on the following issues: the physical and technical infrastructure needs of K-12 schools throughout Virgina; availability of local funding sources to meet those needs; public-private partnerships that may be available to meet a portion of those needs; the priority of each of those needs; the level of commitment by the Commonwealth to supplement local efforts in meeting those needs; the level of the Commonwealth’s debt capacity available over the next 10 years to assist with capital projects for K-12 schools; the appropriate bond structure, including issuer, type of debt obligation, period of time over which the debt should be issued, and potential revenue sources for repayment; and the method for prioritizing and distributing the proceeds. 5p.
Paying for Schools: Does Smart Growth Matter? Growth Patterns in El Paso County and the Falcon School District.
Greenwood, Daphne; Stiedemann, Jacob
(University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Center for Colorado Policy Studies , Sep 17, 2004)
Describes how three factors have combined to create an unsustainable solution for both homeowners and school districts in some of the most rapidly growing areas in the Pikes Peak region: 1) the segregation of residential from commercial and industrial property, 2) the Gallagher Amendment effect on residential property assessments, and 3) the existence of sixteen separate school districts in El Paso County. Without sufficient commercial property, homeowners must pay higher taxes to fund infrastructure than they would in more diversified districts 13p.
School Bond Guide.
(Kansas State Department of Education, Topeka, KA, 2004)
The purpose of this booklet is to serve as a guide to the Kansas statutes relating to the issuance of school bonds and the construction of school buildings. Statutory citations are provided. Samples of forms that may be used to develop a school bond program are included. 46p.
State Spending on Capital Outlay/Interest, 1998-1999.
(Education Commission of the States. Data from the Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003. , Jul 2004)
State-by-state data on 1) Capital Outlay Expenditures; 2)Interest on School Debt; 3) Capital Outlay and Interest Expenditures; 4) Student Enrollment Fall 1999; 5) Per-capita Spending on Capital Outlay; 6) Per-capita Spending on Interest; and 7)Per-capita Spending on Capital Outlay & Interest.
Rural School Facilities: State Policies that Provide Students with an Environment to Promote Learning.
McColl, Ann; Malhoit, Gregory C.
(Rural School and Community Trust, Arlington, VA , Jun 2004)
Defines the essential components of a fair and effective state school facilities policy and suggests a series of policies in five key areas: 1) Setting priorities for approving and funding school facilities; 2) Adopting funding mechanisms that do not penalize rural and low wealth districts; 3) Creating standards for school facilities; 4) Defining the appropriate state role, setting ethical standards, and encouraging local participation; and 5) Establishing processes to evaluate state school facility programs and projects. Appendices offer guidelines and a checklist for state school facility programs and referrals to additional resources. (Includes 76 references.) 23p.
Making the Right to a Sound Basic Education a Reality. Part II. Building Aid Reform, Adequate Facilities for All.
(Campaign for Fiscal Equity, New York, NY , Apr 13, 2004)
Examines New York State's Building Aid Formulas and proposes seven reforms to the system. These reforms are urged to address the New York City's serious facility issues and its present violations of constitutional educational adequacy requirements. Alongside those reforms, a proposed "catch up" program for New York City entitled "BRICKS" ("Building Requires Immediate Capital for Kids") is detailed. 53p.
Breaking Ground: Rebuilding New Jersey's Urban Schools The Abbott School Construction Program.
(Education Law Center, Newark, NJ , Apr 2004)
Recounts the history of New Jersey's Abbott School Construction Program, from 1990 court rulings on school facility deficiencies in poorer school districts to the present. The work of the Program in creating facilities plans, integrating planning and design with educational needs, and lessons learned from the first years of the program are described. It is written to assist policy-makers and advocates in New Jersey and elsewhere in their efforts to renovate and construct educationally adequate, and community-centered public schools. 40p.
National Spending on Capital Outlay. Spending on Capital Outlay and Interest on School Debt: 1919 to 2000 (Local, State and Federal)
(Education Commission of the States. Data from the Digest of Education Statistics 2002, published by the National Center for Education Statistics, 2003. , Feb 2004)
This table illustrates the breakdown of total capital outlay spending for education facilities from 1919 to 2000. It includes figures on: 1) Capital Outlay; 2) Interest on School Debt; 3) Capital Outlay as a % of total education spending; 4) Interest on School Debt as a % of total education spending; and 5) Capital Outlay & Interest as a % of total education spending.
Task Force to Study Public School Facilities: Final Report.
(Maryland Dept. of Legislative Services, Annapolis , Feb 2004)
Presents the results of two years work by this task force to examine the adequacy and equity of Maryland's public school construction program. The Task Force began with a facility assessment of all schools in the state, found deficiencies in every jurisdiction, and concluded that it will cost 3.85 billion dollars to bring all schools up to the minimum standard for educational programming, health, and safety requirements. It recommends that the state establish a School Emergency Repair Fund, with an initial investment of $2 million, to address deficiencies that present an immediate hazard. It also proposes funding levels, formulas, creative financing options, and changes to Maryland's school construction statutes. 58p.
Facilities Financing. New Models for Districts That Are Creating Schools Now.
Hassel, Bryan; Esser, Katie Walter
(Education Evolving: A Joint Venture of the Center for Policy Studies and Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota , Feb 2004)
This report outlines innovative ways school districts are meeting their facilities needs outside the traditional sources of facilities financing. Non-traditional funding strategies include private development of public school buildings, partnerships with employer-based schools, direct borrowing on the private market, and sale or lease of existing school facilities. Cost-saving solutions include space-sharing with community agencies or with higher education, and educating outside the school building using community resources or distance learning. New institutional solutions include establishing real estate trusts and intermediaries. Included are specific examples of how districts are implementing these strategies, and a list of additional readings on these topics. 16p.
Education Laws and Regulations, 603 CMR 38.00: School Construction. [Massachusetts]
(Massachusetts Department of Education. , 2004)
Presents Massachusetts' laws for school construction in situations where state building aid is sought. The laws cover general requirements for design, materials, and construction, along with standards for sites, programs, costs, renovations. Procedures and requirements for the granting process, emergencies, reimbursals, waivers, and maintenance are also covered.
Maine High Performance Schools Program.
(Maine Public Utilities Commision, Efficiency Maine, Augusta , 2004)
Presents an overview of energy-efficient technologies that may be eligible for financial assistance from the Maine High Performance Schools Program. Artificial lighting, daylighting, mechanical systems, heating systems, and life cycle cost analysis are described. 24p.
Maryland Public Education Facilities Act. Senate Bill 736
(Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly, 2004)
"This bill establishes the Maryland Public Education Facilities Act to: 1) encourage the use of alternative financing mechanisms, private capital, and other funding sources for the construction and improvement of public school facilities; 2) accelerate and improve the financing for qualified education facilities; and 3) provide public and private entities with the greatest possible flexibility in contracting with others." Includes descriptions of the provisions concerning issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds, procurement methods, use of surplus land, and model procedures and recommendations. 6p.
New Jersey School Construction Corporation Annual Report.
(New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, Trenton , 2004)
Presents the report of the Corporation's work in calendar year 2003. The Corporation is charged with ensuring that the state complies with court mandated full funding of school construction in areas of greatest need, to partial funding in less impoverished areas. The report highlights innovative demonstration projects and reports the grant totals for each county. 36p.
Public School Capital Outlay Council and Public School Facilities Authority Annual Report 2004.
(New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council/Public School Facilities Authority, Santa Fe , 2004)
Presents the annual report for these two New Mexico authorities, reporting amounts and types of expenditures on school construction, progress on energy efficiency and indoor air quality, and partnering endeavors. 19p.
School Building Assistance Program[Massachusetts].
(Massachusetts Department of Education, 2004)
Massachusetts' School Building Assistance program is designed to help communities undertake important school building projects by having the state assume a significant portion of all costs associated with the construction of new buildings and the renovation of (or major additions to) existing buildings. This describes the law and regulations, provides reimbursement rates, a priority list, and administrative advisories. Includes a series of informational items.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2003-2004.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2004)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, joint use, critically overcrowded schools, energy conservation, federal renovations, charter schools, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 60p.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission 2003 Annual Report.
(Ohio School Facilities Commission, Columbus , 2004)
Assesses the funding, management oversight, and technical assistance provided by the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) to meet Ohio school district's construction and renovation needs for fiscal year 2003. The report describes progress in the following OSFC programs: Classroom Facilities Assistance, Urban Initiative, Exceptional Needs, Expedited Local Partnership, Emergency Assistance, Energy Conservation, Federal Emergency Repair, Community School Guaranteed Loans, and Extreme Environmental Contamination. The report also includes information about OSFC's Design Manual, technology, and partnering efforts, as well as comparative financial data on each of its programs and Ohio capital appropriations for school facilities. 23p.
Wake County Public School System Plan 2004.
(Wake County Public School , 2004)
Provides information and resources to accompany the Wake County Public School System's Plan 2004. The Plan is the result of a $450 million school bond referendum, covers 2004-08, and includes building 13 new schools and a pre-kindergarten center, comprehensive renovations at 16 schools, and repairs and re-roofing projects at 61 campuses. PLAN 2004 is one segment of a continuous capital improvement program to address growth in the district.
No Place to Learn: California's School Facility Crisis.
Billingsley, K. Lloyd
(Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA , Jan 2004)
Describes the state's difficulty building schools, due to bureaucratic delays and regulations that drive up construction costs. A plan for reform is proposed that includes exemptions from the state's Field Act, a single-payer system which provides grants to districts, reduction of Field Act staff and consultants, conversion of administrative facilities to classrooms, elimination of class-size reduction requirements, year-round schooling, no universal preschool, encouragement of developer-built schools, elimination of prevailing-wage laws, encouragement of home schooling, expansion of charter schools, and school choice. 57p.
The Condition of School Funding in Arizona.
(Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ., 2004)
This brief examines how Arizona’s public education funding has evolved over the last 25 years. It includes an extensive discussion of the Student FIRST legislation that established a new Arizona School Facilities Board and assigned it the responsibility for creating standards for school facilities and administering appropriations for school construction and renovation. 20p.
Review of Selected States' Responses to Facility Surveys.
(Maryland Dept. of Legislative Services, Annapolis , Dec 01, 2003)
Presents findings of a Maryland review of studies of several school construction programs, with an in-depth study of Arizona, North Carolina, and Ohio. The report revealed that all three states linked the results of their facility surveys to their funding programs, had developed a specific time frame within which to correct facilities deficiencies, and were using both ongoing and targeted programs funded with a combination of capital debt and dedicated revenue sources. However, unlike Maryland, none of these states had a comprehensive, consistent system of school facility finance in place prior to conducting facilities surveys and developing the current programs, although two of these states had developed their current school facility programs in response to the specific mandates of adequacy litigation. 11p.
Building on Judicial Intervention: The Redesign of School Facilities Funding in Arizona.
Hunter, Molly A.
(Studies in Judicial Remedies and Public Engagement; Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. , Sep 2003)
This article analyzes the Arizona litigations that challenged the state education finance system for facilities and other capital items, examines a unique, three-day public engagement event, and documents an iterative decision-making process that led to enactment of a remarkably successful, innovative capital funding system and resulted from standards-based funding principles established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Also discusses current litigations that ask the courts to extend those principles to funding for English language learners and "at-risk" students. 31p.
Leaving Children Behind: The Underfunding of D.C. Public Schools Building Repair and Capital Budget Needs.
(Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools, Washington, D.C. , Jul 2003)
This report analyzes the current status of the District's efforts to modernize its crumbling school buildings. Five years ago, following an assessment of each of the District's school facilities, the D.C. Public School System faced up to longstanding problems and developed a Facility Master Plan to modernize schools over a 10-15 year period. Now funding cuts threaten to halt this modernization plan. This report urges lawmakers to fund these plans. 28p.
State Policies and School Facilities: How States Can Support or Undermine Neighborhood Schools and Community Preservation.
Beaumont, Constance E.
(National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC , May 2003)
This report reaffirms the contribution made by historic neighborhood schools to their communities. It offers guidance to officials and local preservationists for creating state policies that help preserve and maintain historic community schools, and for building new schools that serve as community centers. The report describes state requirements for community involvement in school planning, the overly generous site standards that contradict the creation of community schools and preservation, and funding mechanisms that help preserve historic schools. Information for the report was gathered from telephone interviews, correspondence with state school facility officials,and online reviews of printed school facility standards. Includes 13 references. 32p.
The Economic Impact of Implementing the Cincinnati Public Schools' Facilities Master Plan on Greater Cincinnati.
(Cincinnati University, Economics Center for Education & Research, Ohio. , Apr 2003)
The construction proposed in the Cincinnati Public Schools' Facilities Master Plan will have a significant impact on the greater Cincinnati, Ohio, economy. Highlights include: (1) the Facilities Master Plan of the Cincinnati Public Schools envisions a 10-year program with $985 million in construction spending. The funding of this program includes $211 million from the State of Ohio, which increases the purchasing power of the $774 million local funding commitment; (2) the Facilities Master Plan will generate a total of $2.35 billion in economic impact, including $718 million in local household wages and salaries, meaning an average annual impact of the Facilities Master Plan for the next 10 years of $232 million, and household earnings totaling $71 million and 2,339 jobs will be generated for area residents each year; (3) the return of $718 million in wages and salaries for $774 million in local dollars is important, meaning that every $100 in local funding ultimately returns $93 in wages and salaries to the pockets of local workers; (4) business activity will especially be stimulated in the construction, business services, real estate, and retail sectors; and (5) economic benefits may result from improvements in educational quality, quality of life, and physical conditions of neighborhoods, but are not measured here. 35p.
Financing Michigan's Public Schools: Requirements, Issues, and Options.
(Michigan Dept. of Education, Lansing , 01/08/2003)
Reports on school infrastructure needs in Michigan, discusses financing problems in low-wealth districts, and presents a comparative table of school infrastructure funding programs in all 50 states. 26p.
Building Our Future: Annual Report FY 02.
(Ohio School Facilities Commission , 2003)
This annual report from the Ohio School Facilities Commission reports on the organization and its history and programs. The Ohio School Design Manual, technology assistance, partnering, the financial picture of Ohio schools, and current projects of the Commission are also covered. 20p
Quality Counts: School Climate.
(Education Week, Washington, D.C. , Jan 2003)
Education Week has recently published its annual Quality Counts, a report on the most significant developments in education policy across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The section on School Climate provides data on school facilities, including the amount of state funding dedicated to capital outlay or construction for FY 2003. There is also comparative data on school safety, class size, and school size. [Registration required for full text online.]TO ORDER: http://www.edweek.com
School Construction: Building a Better Schoolhouse.
(Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Olympia, WA., 2003)
This discusses several innovative ways to fund school construction using public-private partnerships, including municipal/capital lease plans, operating lease plans, a service contract structure, and a satellite concept. This is section of the "School Director's Handbook" which addresses a range of issues of interest to school directors, teachers, and parents and are intended to promote discussion about educational alternatives. 6p.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2002-2003.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2003)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, joint use, critically overcrowded schools, energy conservation, charter schools, lease- purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 63p.
Guide for Planning School Construction Projects in Minnesota.
Division of Assistance Management
(Minnesota State Dept. of Children, Families, and Learning, St. Paul, MN , Jan 2003)
This guide summarizes changes in laws and regulations for educational facility funding options and construction project proposals; highlights some of the latest ideas in planning and designing school sites, space design, and related issues; and examines essential considerations when designing middle level and community use/partnership spaces in schools. Minnesota state regional and local agency procedural requirements for school construction project review are included. Related issues and considerations involving the development of partnerships with community groups, public agencies, and private users; urban and rural schools; school security; indoor air quality; lighting and electrical systems; and charter and private schools conclude the guide. 160p.
Financing Bricks and Mortar: State Building Aid and School District Response.
(Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY , 2003)
Uses the New York State Building Aid program as an example to examine quality inequities in school facilities where state construction aid is available. Compares New York's program to those from 19 other states, presents a model of school capital investment that illustrates its longer time frame, and analyzes New York district response to building aid program price incentives on capital investment and maintenance spending. Conclusions are accompanied by policy implications, and 36 references are included. 49p.
Adequacy and Equity of Facility Funding for the Kentucky Public School System
Ralston, Jerry Wallace
(Dissertation, University of Kentucky, 2003)
Historically, adequate and equitable funding has been an issue in financing school facilities in Kentucky. The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990 provided a new funding mechanism, the Support Educational Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK), to correct inequities in the funding for Kentucky's public schools and school facilities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the funding of school facility construction and renovation in Kentucky school districts to determine whether adequacy and equity were characteristic of Kentucky's facility funding system and whether or not programs designed to produce adequacy and equity were effective. The results of this study indicate clearly that the funding of facilities across Kentucky school districts is not adequate. Programs designed to improve adequacy for high growth districts have been somewhat successful, but more improvement is needed. Results also indicate that vertical equity and fiscal neutrality do exist in Kentucky's facility funding. However, programs designed to improve horizontal equity have not been successful. [Author's abstract]Report NO: UMI: AA13077714
TO ORDER: UMI Dissertation Express
Financing School Facilities.
(Association of School Business Officials International, Reston, VA , 2002)
This report is the result of research investigating school facility issues, assessing the scope of the problem, and making recommendations to the membership of the Association of School Business Officials International. Each of the following three areas are examined: the construction of new facilities and the renovation or expansion of existing one; payment for accumulated deferred maintenance in existing facilities and adequate maintenance of facilities in the future; and financing of the future depreciation of existing and new school facilities and equipment. The report recommends changes in policies, statutes, regulations, and laws in order to properly address all three areas, including specific proposed actions for the states. Concluding comments suggest that the school districts with the lowest taxing abilities are the ones with the highest levels of deferred maintenance and that facilities continue to be predominately a local concern. The report acknowledges that while there is not enough money to improve all the schools within a state, school business officials must be more creative in their search for financial mechanisms to help solve the problems, coordinate their efforts, and lobby effectively. (Contains 17 references.) 16p.
Progress Report, Fiscal Years 1998-2003, School Construction Program.
(Illinois Capital Development Board, Springfield , Nov 01, 2002)
Presents a brief overview of the the State of Illinois School Construction Program, tables illustrating how and where funds have been distributed since inception, and a statewide list, by county, showing state and local shares of school construction funds. 12p.
Facilitating Success: The Impact of Proposition 47 on Student Performance.
(California for Public Schools Alliance, Sacramento , Oct 2002)
Reviews research examining the relationship between the quality of school facilities and student success and the value of class size reduction. The value of creating smaller schools and how California's Proposition 47, which will provide $13.05 billion in general obligation bonds, can help facilitate the proliferation of these schools by providing proper facilities is then discussed. Firsthand accounts of how the Proposition will specifically help some local communities throughout California improve their schools are included, along with 21 references. 31p.
Building Quality Schools: Revisions to the School Construction Formula and Recommendations on Standards.
(Delaware Dept. of Education, Dover , Sep 2002)
Presents the results of a 2001 review of Delaware's School Construction Formula that details the environment and condition of Delaware schools, and proposes adjustments to space and funding recommendations in the Formula. While the Committee did not recommend the adoption of standard plans, it did recommend that the Delaware Department of Education should develop stock plans for classroom additions and a plan repository at the DOE to guide districts in new construction and renovation. Includes eight references. 39p.
School Capital Funding: Supplementary State Profiles.
(Tennessee Comptroller, Office of Education Accountability, Nashville. , Aug 2002)
In July 2001, the Tennessee Comptroller's Office of Education Accountability (OEA) began studying methods other states use to finance K-12 capital outlay. The final product of this research is the report "School Capital Funding: Tennessee in a National Context." As part of this research, OEA staff compiled information on state K-12 capital finance methods in all 50 states. This information is included in these supplementary state profiles. The profiles contain information on contact person, credit enhancement programs, loan programs, annual capital funding programs, additional methods, state oversight, and legal action. 103p.TO ORDER: Office of Education Accountability, 505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700, Nashville, TN 37243-0268. Tel: 615-401-7911.
School Capital Funding: Tennessee in a National Context.
(Tennessee Comptroller, Office of Education Accountability, Nashville. , Aug 2002)
This report evaluates the need for K-12 capital spending in Tennessee and the methods the state uses to meet this need within a national context. The report examines the benefits of capital outlay spending and its impact on student performance. It identifies the major drivers of capital expenses. The report then investigates the roles the federal government and other state governments play in funding these expenses and how Tennessee compares to other states. Finally, it identifies strengths and weaknesses of Tennessee's existing funding programs and suggests possible improvements. The report's conclusions include: (1) based on the condition of existing facilities, Tennessee's school construction needs are significant but less than those found in other states; (2) based on enrollment growth, Tennessee's school construction needs are comparable to those of the rest of the nation and will decline in the coming decade; (3) legal challenges have increased state capital funding in Tennessee, but not to the extent found in other states; and (4) total K-12 capital spending in Tennessee increased more rapidly over the past decade than did spending nationwide, but probably remains below the national average. 39p.TO ORDER: Office of Education Accountability, 505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700, Nashville, TN. Tel: 615-401-7911.
School District Responses to Building Aid Incentives.
(New York State Education Dept., State Aid Work Group, Albany, NY , Apr 2002)
In recent years, New York State has encouraged school districts to ensure that their facilities are adequate to educate students by offering financial incentives through building aid formulas. This research monograph (1) explains the legal provisions that govern building aid and in particular the leveraging effects created by the new legislation that enabled districts to receive increased state support for qualified building projects; (2) examines the behavioral response of districts to those incentives by comparing data on school capital construction activity before and after the incentives went into effect, and the types of districts in which increased spending was most prevalent following the introduction of the incentives; (3) offers hypotheses regarding the reasons for the relatively modest response of certain categories of districts to the incentives; and (4) discusses the policy implications of the findings and offer suggestions for further research. 26p.TO ORDER: Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit, New York State Education Department, EB, Room 301, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2001-2002.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2002)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 52p.
Healthier Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality.
(Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC , Jan 2002)
Existing indoor air quality (IAQ) policies for schools reflect the variety of institutional, political, social, and economic contexts that exist within individual states. The purpose of this report is to provide a better understanding of the types of policy strategies used by states in addressing general indoor air quality problems. The policies discussed illustrate approaches that states can consider when developing legislation, regulations, guidance documents, and programs to create healthier indoor environments in schools. The report provides detailed information on existing policies, with an emphasis on policy strategies aimed at preventing indoor air quality problems. Thus, the report focuses on policies that promote better maintenance and management of existing school facilities, as well as better design and construction practices in new and renovated schools. Additionally, since an IAQ policy has little value unless implemented, the report highlights significant implementation activities and notes potential strengths and weaknesses of individual policies in this regard. 51p.Report NO: ELI-Project-No-96090
TO ORDER: Environmental Law Institute, 1616 P St., N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 202-939-3800
School Construction and Building Aid: An On-Again, Off-Again Priority. [New York]
McCall, H. Carl
(Office of the State Comptroller, Albany, NY , Dec 2001)
This report from the New York State Comptroller's office details problems with the State's approach to school facilities in recent years, describes why serious physical deficiencies remain unaddressed despite greatly increased spending, and makes recommendations for improvement. The report concludes that state policy for school facilities has vacillated in recent years, leaving an area where long-term planning and a consistent approach are most needed without either. Recommendations include: (1) ending annual manipulations to funding; (2) new approaches to creating classroom space, including public-private partnerships, leaseback agreements, and shared-use facilities; and (3) changes to New York City's financing arrangements. 16p.
Innovative and Workable Ideas for Building Schools. Public/Private Partnerships: A New Way To Fund and Build Schools.
(Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, Springfield, VA. , Oct 2001)
This report presents case studies illustrating successful public-private financing of school construction. The efforts occurred in Canada, Florida, South Carolina, New York, the District of Columbia, and Texas. The case studies are offered to encourage policy makers in Virginia to consider such an approach to meet the state's school construction needs. The report concludes that public-private development has shown dramatic results in terms of time saved, money saved, final product, and completion of projects that traditional financing could not support. 17p.
Public School Construction in Utah.
(Utah State Legislature, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Salt Lake City , Sep 11, 2001)
Examines Utah's public school construction program in light of creating school equity. Recommendations include streamlining approval of construction projects, the creation of a school facility database that will track the condition of all public school buildings, and the creation of a revolving loan fund to assist school districts with the construction of new buildings. 23p.
District of Columbia: D.C. Public Schools Inappropriately Used Gas Utility Contract for Renovations. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
This report assesses the pace and quality of the District of Columbia's $1.3 billion multiyear effort to renovate and modernize its public schools. Findings reveal that the District of Columbia school system had mismanaged an area-wide utility contract for gas and energy management services between the General Services Administration and the Washington Gas Light Company in making tens of millions of dollars in school renovations. Also, the school system failed to adhere to numerous controls and procedures designed to ensure that the District obtain the best prices and services and maintain proper relationships between contractors and the government. The investigation shows that, by circumventing important management and oversight controls, the school system put the renovation work at considerable risk of improper billing, poor quality work, and high prices. The report reveals that the school system was overcharged by about $1.9 million because of duplicate billings and billings for work not completed. Appendices contain the scope and methodology of the research; comments from the District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington Gas Light Company, and the General Services Administration (GSA); and comments about the extent to which the school system's orders did not fall within the scope of the GSA contract. 75p.Report NO: GAO-01-963
Update of School Construction Assistance Programs Survey for Wyoming State Legislature.
(MGT of America, Inc., Tallahassee, FL. , Aug 23, 2001)
This report summarizes data collected from all responding departments with school construction facilities budget responsibility in 49 of the 50 sates (Wyoming excluded). Each of the 49 states was asked to participate in the update of the survey, which was last compiled in 1999. Data are presented in two formats. The first is broken into categories describing the background of school construction issues, school funding programs, key policy questions, and a list of states with legal challenges to school construction programs, both current and resolved. The second is a collection of data for each individual state. In this section there is information on these issues: administering agency; current appropriate; dedicated revenue; funding sources; local matching requirement and related funding source; eligibility criteria; priority factors; specific criteria; and recent or pending legal actions and outcomes. The report includes data from 45 states, 36 of which are currently operating state funded school construction programs. Nine states do not currently have such programs. Six states have established a new agency to oversee school construction in the state, and 10 states have established formulas for determining the amount of state funding each school district receives. Four states require the governor and the state legislature to approve all school construction projects before state funding is made available, and 11 states subsidize, reimburse, or match local funding for construction projects 83p.
Financing New School Construction and Modernization: Evidence from California.
Brunner, Eric; Rueben, Kim
(Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco , Jun 2001)
Examines the level and distribution of school facilities spending in California. While spending on school facilities has increased in the past decade, California's per capita spending is still 20 percent lower than the national average. Revenue for school facilities is unequally distributed across school districts. This disparity is explained almost equally by differences in enrollment growth and those in assessed values of property. Includes 12 references. 29p.
Land Acquisition Practices of the Miami-Dade County School District. A Special Review.
(Florida State Legislature,Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, Tallahassee , May 2001)
This review, requested by the Florida Legislature, answers six questions about Miami-Dade County School District's land acquisition practices: (1) Does the district effectively identify its facility needs and plan for those needs? (2) Does the district acquire the land it needs? (3) Has the district adopted land acquisition processes needed to ensure that it acquires land at reasonable prices? (4) Does the district construct cost-effective facilities? (5) Can the need for construction be limited by more efficient use of existing facilities? (6) Can the district raise extra local revenue to support its construction program? The review's findings indicate that, while the district is generally effective in identifying its facility needs, it has not acquired the land it needed because it often did not use the five-year construction plan to guide its acquisitions, nor has it established procedures to help ensure it pays reasonable land prices. The findings conclude that the district is capable of raising adequate funds for new facilities and land without raising taxes or obtaining additional state funding. 60p.Report NO: R-01-26
A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance.
OMalley, Marianne; Guyer, Chris; Skinner, Erik
(California State Legislative Analyst's Office, Sacramento, CA , May 01, 2001)
This report provides an overview of California's current process of supporting K-12 school capital outlay, identifies its shortcomings, and offers a conceptually different approach, or blueprint, for providing state school construction support. The report also outlines a model program, consistent with this blueprint, which the state legislature could phase in as resources permit. How California pays for school construction is explained along with an analysis of how well the existing finance system works, the development process of the new blueprint for school facility finance and its application, oversight management, and short-term transition funding for districts with large unmet facilities needs. Final comments address the program's demand for state resources and the legislative responsibilities involving resource allocation. 24p.
A Primer on the Public School State Approval Process.
(California Dept. of General Services, Sacramento , Mar 2001)
Summarizes the role of five California state entities in approving and funding school construction, as well as a potential 40 additional programs that may become involved under certain conditions. The Primer is designed to guide districts through all the steps that they must take, in a logical, understandable, and time-saving fashion. 33p.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: An Analysis of the Chicago Public Schools' Capital Improvement Plan.
Ryan, Matt; Schwartz, Chris
(Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, Chicago, IL , Mar 2001)
This report examines the Chicago Public School System's need for capital improvement, and it highlights action plans for the future. The report reveals that many planned school improvements projects are unfunded and that there is about $229 million worth of projects that no longer appear in the city's capital improvements plan. Overcrowding remains a persistent and unresolved problem, and there has been no clear plan for integrating educational technology. The Chicago public school system alone has $2.5 billion in unfunded capital needs for its schools, but funds allotted for statewide capital needs are rapidly disappearing, and federal assistance in local school construction and repair needs is in jeopardy. It is recommended that, to ensure that the Capital Improvement Program is as fair and efficient as possible, the Chicago Public Schools should release the building assessments for each school facility and make public its demographic predictions for enrollment growth. Appendices contain highlights of capital programs in other major midwestern cities and a summary of Chicago's Teachers' Pension Fund Proposal. 49p.
Building Aid Shortchanges the Big Cities: The Distribution of Building Aid to New York State School Districts, 1992-1999. Educational Priorities Panel.
(Educational Priorities Panel, New York, NY , Feb 2001)
This study assesses the funding efforts of New York State's Building Aid program, and it shows that financial support for school district equipment and capital outlays has been less, over the last seven years, for the state's "big five" school districts than for the average district in New York, and far less than for other districts of similar wealth. Study findings represent the school year periods from 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 and include 658 school districts, including the "big five" comprising Yonkers, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo. Besides receiving less funding for equipment and capital needs, the study reveals that the "big five" have spent significantly less in these areas than other districts. Ultimately, this lack of funding is considered a significant problem since these districts have 40 percent of the state's student population. (Contains seven figures.) 12p.
School Construction Report. [Vermont]
Klein, Stephen; Perrault, Mark; Teachout, Sara; Hilgendorf, Catherine; James, Brad; Savage, Stuart
(Report to the Vermont Legislature , Jan 15, 2001)
Discusses the adequacy and availability of state assistance for K-12 school construction in Vermont. Stated concerns include the annual obligation for expenditures exceeds the amount of capital bill funding; current state law reimburses a fixed 30% of allowable costs which is inadequate, and no readily available source of funds for long-term school construction needs. A school construction study discusses financial equity, state funding outlook, statutory priority system, fast growing districts, school facilities conditions, and technical education centers. 42p.
Building Our Future: The Ohio School Facilities Commission Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report.
(Ohio School Facilities Commission, Columbus , 2001)
Assesses the funding, management oversight, and technical assistance provided by the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) to meet Ohio school district's construction and renovation needs for fiscal year 2001. Following a brief history of the OSFC, the report describes and examines progress in the following OSFC programs: Classroom Facilities Assistance; Exceptional Needs; Expedited Local Partnership; Accelerated Urban Initiative; Extreme Environmental Contamination; Short-Term Loan; Emergency Assistance; and Energy Conservation. Project milestones are listed, and the Ohio School Design Manual is described. The report concludes with information about OSFC investments in website and network technology, and comparative financial data on each of its programs and Ohio capital appropriations for school facilities. 23p.
City School District of Albany Facilities Plan.
(Albany City School District, NY, 2001)
The Albany, New York, Board of Education has developed a facilities improvement plan for the Albany City Schools. This document provides detailed information about the plan, its process, vision, funding, timing, voting information, and frequently asked questions.
School Finance 101.
(Pennsylvania Dept. of Education, Harrisburg , 2001)
Explains the financing of schools in Pennsylvania, including the approval, reimbursement system, and bidding and public hearing requirements for school construction. 64p.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 2000-2001.
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2001)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 53p.
Rural Action Strengthens Ties between School and Community during Appalachian Ohio's Long Fight for Equitable School Funding. Rural Trust Featured Project.
Null, Elisabeth Higgins
(Rural School and Community Trust, Washington, DC. , 2001)
Because school systems throughout America depend on local property taxes for much of their revenue, districts with poor property valuations, especially rural districts, are facing fiscal crises. In response to a lawsuit filed in 1991, the Ohio Supreme Court twice decided that the state's heavy reliance on local property taxes for school funding violated provisions in the Ohio Constitution, mandating a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The state responded with a "cookie cutter" program of school construction and renovation based on minimum numbers of enrollments and class sizes. This program is forcing school closings and consolidation. Meanwhile, the state has not yet developed equitable per-pupil funding formulas, overhauled its school financing system, provided enough money for the construction and renovation program, or paid for unfunded and partially funded mandates. The issue is still before the state's Supreme Court. Rural Action, a regional organization dedicated to social, economic, and environmental justice, has launched an initiative to help citizens learn about funding and facilities issues, develop priorities for their schools, develop leadership talent, and translate their ideas into action. It has published a series of "Little Red School Books" clarifying tax terms, mechanisms, and policies; compiling readings and resources; and helping communities learn how to set goals in advance of design and construction. It has also organized events where students and teachers meet with state legislators, architects, and agency representatives to explain what their communities need and want. 10p
Financing School Facilities.
(Governor's Education Reform Study Commission, Education Facilities Committee, Atlanta, GA , Nov 28, 2000)
The purpose of this paper is to provide information regarding the financing of Georgia school facilities in the past, the current method of financing needed school facilities, and possible alternatives for providing the financing needed for school facilities in the future. The methods used and the level of state funding for school facilities in other states allow a comparison of Georgia's Capital Outlay Program to the capital outlay programs available in other states. The responsibility for financing school facilities in Georgia has been shared by the state and local boards of education, using both state and local revenue sources. An examination of the appropriate balance between state and local obligation for capital expenses is a focus of this paper. Additionally, since local school systems vary in their ability to finance school facilities with local revenue sources, alternative formulas are considered for taking that variation into account in the distribution of state capital outlay funds. 32p.
Build Smart: School Construction in Illinois.
(Illinois Capital Development Board, Springfield , Nov 2000)
Presents successful ideas and identifies common pitfalls in school construction campaigns. Chapters cover the planning process, financing, site selection, design, construction, and community involvement aspects of projects. Each of these phases is then broken down chronologically according to the steps to be taken during that phase. 103p.
Waste and Abuse: Public School Roofing Projects.
(New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, Trenton , Sep 2000)
This report details the results of a comprehensive inquiry by New Jersey into one aspect of school construction, the repair and replacement of roof systems, which represents the single most expensive and integral component of a school's physical structure. The investigation began in late 1997 after confidential complaints suggested abuse in the re-roofing of public schools. Investigation revealed evidence of widespread cost-gouging; unscrupulous bidding practices; contract manipulation; questionable design, installation, and inspection procedures; and other abuses. The probe was statewide in scope, involving a review of 115 separate roofing projects in 39 school districts across 13 counties. Projects carried a total taxpayer investment of more than $37.8 million. Key findings fall into five major areas: conflicts of interest/professional misrepresentation, manipulation of public bidding and contracting, questions of safety, inadequate oversight, and improper labor practices/payroll violations. The report discusses the proper school roofing process and how it is subverted, offers a case study of Edison Township school district, provides roofing project summaries for several districts, describes a model roofing project, and provides recommendations. 176p.
Building America's Schools: State Efforts To Address School Facility Needs
(National Governor's Association (NGA), Education Policy Studies Division, NGA Center for Best Practices; Washington, DC , Jun 14, 2000)
This document provides summaries of each state's activities to address their shortage of school buildings by supporting school construction. It reveals that 11 state subsidize, reimburse, or match local funding for construction projects; 10 states have an established formula for determining the amount of state funding each school district receives; 6 states have established a new agency to oversee school construction with the state; 5 states provide low-interest loans for low-income school districts to help support their school construction efforts; and 4 states require the Governor and the state legislature to approve all school construction projects prior to state funding being made available. Contact information for each state is included. 15p.
Public School Construction Cost Reduction Guidelines.
(California State Allocation Board, Sacramento , Apr 26, 2000)
Sets forth best practices and strategies for constructing or modernizing school facilities. Developed through a series of workshops, it identifies some of the key issues and processes that inflate construction costs, and suggests how to avoid them. The recommendations are organized under the categories of joint use, site selection, consultant relations, contractor relations, state agencies, construction, prototypes, and project delivery. 107p.
Rules for School Construction Projects. [Maine]
(Maine Dept. of Education, School Support Systems Team. , Apr 04, 2000)
This document defines the conditions under which the State of Maine will subsidize school building construction projects. The document identifies several stages of approval that must be secured, including site approval, concept approval, local voter approval, and funding approval. A flow chart identifies how the project will proceed and the various organizations that will have primary importance during each stage. There are descriptions of these organizations and their specific responsibilities. The report also specifies general submission guidelines and deadlines, and it details the rating system to be used in evaluating each school construction process under a major capital improvement program. The document also contains the educational specifications and space allocations information required from each local unit by the state's department of education. Other sections discuss site size regulations; the required school site approval documentation; financial record keeping requirements; regulations regarding school construction project bonding; surplus project fund handling and contingency usage approval; and definitions of moveable equipment. 20p.
School Facilities. Construction Expenditures Have Grown Significantly in Recent Years Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives.
(General Accounting Office, Washington, DC , Mar 2000)
A General Accounting Office report examines how states and local school districts have been dealing with the issues facing their public school facilities: (1) the trends since 1990 in elementary and secondary school construction expenditures and how these expenditures were divided between land, buildings, and equipment; (2) trends since 1990 in the amount of expenditures for elementary and secondary schools construction by type of school and type of construction; and (3) the amounts and mix of state and local funding for elementary and secondary school construction. Data show a 39 percent increase in elementary and secondary school construction annual expenditures. Most of the increase was for new buildings; expenditures for equipment such as heating and air conditioning systems only slightly increased during the 8-year period. It also reveals most of the construction expenditures was for construction of primary schools and high schools, and most of the contract spending for new facilities and additions to existing facilities, with less being spent on renovations. Fifteen states provided little or no funding in 1998-99. Appendices provide the scope and methodology of the research, statistical tables, and comments from the Department of Education. 33p.Report NO: GAO/HEHS-00-41
School Finance Primer: A Taxpayer's Guide to Pubic School Finance. [Arizona]
Hunter, Michael; Gifford, Mary
(Goldwater Institute Center for Market-Based Education, Phoenix, AZ , Feb 2000)
This guide introduces and updates information on the Arizona public school finance system. It is intended to promulgate a wider understanding of public school finance. It includes tables and figures listing revenue support trends and regulations. Topics cover school district financing prior to 1980, the "bucket-of-need" analysis of Arizona's equalized system for facility maintenance and operation, state aid, K-12 finance reform and Arizonas "equalized" system, and expenditures outside the budget limits. The guide also addresses the truth about taxation, offers recommendations on expenditures outside the school district budget limits, discusses funding issues for school construction and renovation, and explains charter school financing and revenue generation. 34p.TO ORDER: Goldwater Institute, 500 East Coronado Road, Phoenix, AZ 85004; Tel: 602-462-5000
Bond Funding. [California]
(New Schools Better Neighborhoods, Los Angeles, CA, 2000)
The State of California is spending $9.2 billion in state school bond funds to modernize and build new schools to begin addressing an estimated $40 billion in statewide school infrastructure needs. At the same time, billions of dollars have been authorized by the voters for investment in parks, libraries, and local school bonds throughout the state. Nevertheless, urban school districts continue to have difficulty accessing the necessary resources to build new schools. Many districts have been unable to meet the 2/3 majority voter approval requirement for passage of local school bonds. Meanwhile, state school construction funds are based on a "first come, first served" allocation system in which those school districts who submit their applications first - regardless of need - receive priority. This provides an insight to various efforts to provide greater accessibility to bond funding.
Guidebook to the School Facility Program. [California]
(California State Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , Jan 2000)
This guidebook assists California school districts in applying for and obtaining "grant" funds for new construction and modernization projects of its public schools under the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. It provides direction on accessing the processes leading to project approvals, insight to the various features of the School Facilities Program (SFP), and includes suggestions on how to make the funding system as efficient as possible. An overview of the SFP is provided followed by chapters addressing specific points of the SFP such as project development activities, the application for eligibility, new construction funding, facility hardship grants, and additional SFP requirements and features. 78p.
Local Bond Elections in California: Some Vital Statistics. EdSource Factsheet
(EdSource, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Jan 2000)
This report examines the fate of general obligation (G.O.) bond measures in California from 1986 to 1999. For the entire 13-year period, the passage rate for local G.O. bonds averaged 54 percent. However, this average masks some dramatic variations depending on when the election was held, the district holding the election, and the area of California in which it was located. In 1990, California's school-facility problems were apparent, but a serious recession in the early 1990s had a dampening effect both on local district's willingness to go to voters for G.O. bonds and voters' willingness to approve them. Although the success of bond elections has varied by district type and size, in general, small elementary districts have done better at the polls and received approval for substantially more funding for facilities on a per-pupil basis. As a whole, elementary districts have been more successful at securing voter approval than unified districts and high-school districts. However, when it comes to amount per pupil, high-school districts received more money, reflecting, in part, the higher cost of high-school facilities. Furthermore, bond-election passage rates differed by county and region, and the causes behind success or failure remain open to question.
NJPSA Recommendations on School Facilities Funding Draft Legislation. [New Jersey]
(New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, Monroe Township, NJ, 2000)
This report details NJPSA's recommendations regarding the draft school facilities legislation. The analysis reveals that the NJDOE proposed models do not address the needs of New Jersey students and will undermine the ability of districts to provide students with a rigorous education. It is important to stress, however, that any school facilities model, no matter how comprehensive, needs to include enough flexibility to address the unique circumstances that individual communities will inevitably face in planning for new or renovated school facilities.
School Buildings & Sites, Building Projects Eligible for State Aid [Vermont].
(Vermont Department of Education, Montpelier, VT , 2000)
These rules are intended to establish the extent to which a proposed project is eligible to receive state construction aid in Vermont, and to provide the procedures and standards for school districts applying for school construction aid. 19p.
School Facilities and Construction. [Pennsylvania]
(Pennyslvania Department of Education, Division of School Facilities, Harrisburg, 2000)
When a school district in Pennsylvania undertakes a major school construction project and seeks reimbursement from the Commonwealth, a process known as PlanCon is initiated. This site provides an overview of the process and contact information.
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, Annual Report 1999-2000,
(California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento , 2000)
Presents the annual report of this state agency that carries out the laws, regulations, policies, and programs of the California State Allocation Board (SAB), which in turn mandates requirements for safe and comfortable California classrooms. The programs covered included new facility construction, modernization, lease-purchase programs, deferred maintenance, relocatable classrooms, and unused school sites. Directories of state agencies and financial summaries of programs are included. 60p.
The Majority Rule Act. EdSource Election Brief: Proposition 26
(EdSource, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Jan 2000)
This article summarizes "The Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability" (Proposition 26). The Majority Rule Act deals with the percentage vote that a school district, county office of education, or community college needs in an election to authorize local general-obligation bonds for school construction. It also provides for funding for classrooms in charter schools. Current law in California requires a two-thirds vote to approve local bonded indebtedness. The report details the major arguments for and against this policy and discusses how schools currently have two major sources of funds for facilities: local general-obligation bonds authorized by two-thirds of the voters in a school district or state general-obligation bonds authorized by a majority of all state voters. It describes how local general-obligation bonds are used for school buildings and how state bonds supplement local money. It details the need for new or renovated facilities, specifying how the majority of the schools in the state are more than 30 years old. Counted among proponents for the measure are major education organizations, charter-school advocates, and business groups. Opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association. A synopsis of the potential financial impact of Proposition 26 is provided.
Equality and Liberty in State Policy for the Funding of School Capital Expenditures.
Schmielau, Robert E.
(Dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, IN , 2000)
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the provisions for equality and liberty in the funding of school capital expenditures in each of the 50 states. More specifically, the following issues were analyzed: (1) the extent to which state policies provide equality in funding school facility construction; (2) the extent to which state policies provide local boards liberty in decisions on funding school facility construction; and (3) categorization of the 50 states with respect to provision of liberty and equality for capital outlay funding. Data were collected from August through November 1999 using a survey instrument developed by the author. Usable data were received from all states. States were categorized as high, moderate, or low with regard to their potential to achieve funding equality and liberty for local districts. Only one state, Hawaii, ranked low in liberty; however, 18 states ranked low in equality. Six states ranked high in both liberty and equality. The following conclusions were formulated: (1) states that continue to rank low in equality are likely to face future litigation; (2) the courts have tolerated some degree of inequality to preserve liberty; (3) politics and not economics often determined how state legislatures responded to equality concerns; (4) differences among the states are far greater with respect to equality than they were with respect to liberty; and (5) many states will continue to experience considerable conflict over funding school construction because of the inevitable tensions between liberty and equality. 193p.Report NO: UMI AAI9963090
Improving Rural School Facilities for Teaching and Learning.
(ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV , Dec 1999)
This digest examines the problem of upgrading rural school facilities, focusing on specific rural issues, conditions that interfere with teaching and learning, and new funding approaches. Almost half of U.S. public schools are in rural areas and small towns. Close rural school-community relationships may make it easier to make decisions, communicate with the community, and raise funds for facilities improvement. On the other hand, many rural districts have financial disadvantages: low enrollments, which diminish available construction money; lower property values, which lower the potential to borrow money; and high poverty rates. About half of rural and small-town schools report at least one facility problem. In addition to deterioration because of age, many rural schools must cope with new requirements for teaching and learning. These include laboratory classrooms, flexible instruction areas, multimedia centers, adequate space to accommodate parent involvement and an array of social and health services, electrical wiring and conduits for computers and other technology, accommodations for special needs students, and mandated removal of hazardous building materials. Fixing these problems will be costly, and despite increased school construction nationwide, rural districts have not kept up with urban areas. In 1997, Congress authorized Qualified Zone Academy Bonds to make school renovation funding more accessible to poor school districts. (Contains 18 references.) 4p.
Rebuilding Our Schools Brick by Brick.
Leavy, Jacqueline, et al.
(Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, Chicago, IL , Nov 1999)
Explores efforts made and lessons learned by the Chicago, Illinois, public school system in rebuilding its public schools. Chapter one examines the connection between the quality of school facilities and learning, and how new ideas about school design may improve the quality of education. Chapters two and three examine Chicago's experience in repairing its school buildings and alleviating overcrowding. Chapter four and the conclusion look at the extent of the school building crisis, national enrollment trends, and what state and local governments have been able to do to solve their problems. Chapter four also includes case studies on how some of the nation's fastest-growing school districts are dealing with the need to fix their schools, and the innovative financing options that have been tried around the country. Appendices contain statistics on Chicago's public school system and a bibliography. 137p.
Good Enough for Congress? A Pictorial Representation of Why Americans Deserve Better School Buildings.
(The American Institute of Architects Committee on Architecture for Education, Washington, DC , Oct 14, 1999)
This booklet graphically depicts the current condition of public high schools attended by various members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, including photos, statistics, and facts about each school and other public education facilities in each member's respective state. The number of schools in the state, total enrollment, state funding for public schools for 1993-94, the total state and local district school construction spending for 1995-96, data on current building conditions and projected needs, and the dollar amount of estimated tax credit bond allocations under legislation introduced in the 106th Congress for each state are also provided. 66p.
Financing Public School Facilities in Texas: A Case Study.
(Austin, TX: Moak, Casey and Associates, LLP , Oct 1999)
A case study is presented of a Texas educational facilities program that was developed to provide long-term state assistance to school districts for the construction or renovation of these facilities by providing equal access to revenue for the specific purpose of repaying debt that is issued to finance instructional facilities. This report presents a brief historical context in which the facilities program was developed, then describes the schema for Texas school finance. Next, the facilities program is described, including the eligibility criteria and the funding formulas that deliver state aid. The impact of the program on local tax rates and debt issuance is discussed and the unique features of the program and its future challenges are assessed. Appendices present statistical tables on the instructional facilities allotment awards for 1998-99 listed by school district, and the principal debt financed with instructional facilities allotment for 1997-99 listed by school district. (Contains 19 references.) 28p.
Collaborative High Schools. [Ohio]
(Ohio State Legislative Office of Education Oversight, Columbus , Jun 1999)
This paper discusses the formation of collaborative high schools in Ohio and presents several incentives that the state's General Assembly might offer to encourage their formation. A collaborative high school is shared and operated by two or more city, local, or exempted village-school districts. The report explores why some districts have been attracted to the collaborative high-school option and why none have moved beyond preliminary discussions. 18p.
Facilities Task Force. [Los Angeles, California]
(Los Angeles Unified School District, CA , May 1999)
The Los Angeles Public School District is experiencing considerable overcrowding and deterioration of its public schools without adequate funding or planning to build new ones. This document presents the recommendations of a task force that assessed the district's public school crisis in the following areas: school maintenance; new facilities construction; better use of existing facilities; and legislation. Task Force recommendations include speeding up new school construction and conversion of existing commercial structures, aggressively pursuing State financial assistance, renovating existing overcrowded schools to reflect the school-within-a-school concept of design, and establishing a joint development plan to generate the appropriate facilities to meet student needs now and into the future. Specific action plans are listed for each recommendation. 7p.
State Building Aid for Public School Districts and BOCES. [New York]
Thurnau, Carl T.
(New York State Education Dept., Office of Facilities Planning, Albany , Apr 1999)
This New York State Education Department bulletin provides guidelines and information on determining state building aid for public school construction pursuant to New York State Education Law: section 3602(6)(1) & (2). Guidelines address state building aid's purpose, eligibility, and formula for aid estimation. Included are guidelines on minimum classroom sizes for K-12 schools; aid requirements for elementary school additions; rating capacity for K- 12, special schools, and their additions; and determination of allowable expenses for building aid and eligible reconstruction projects. 22p.TO ORDER: The State Education Department, University of the State of New York, Office of Facilities Planning, Room 1060, Education Building Annex, Albany, NY 12234
North Dakota's School Construction Approval Process and School Construction Loan Approval Process Reference Guide.
(Department of Public Instruction; 600 E. Boulevard Ave, Dept. 201; Bismarck, ND 58505-0440 , Mar 1999)
The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction has published a guide that includes all documents related to the subjects of school construction approval for schools under, and over, $150,000; construction loans, including application forms which can be reproduced; and the timelines for both processes. School facility plan forms are provided to guide school districts in the development of sophisticated, conclusive, and supportive documentation for proposed school facility projects. Also included are North Dakota Statutes related to the Joint Powers Agreement, School Construction Approval, State School Construction Fund and Loans, Selling Evidence of Indebtedness, and the Competitive Bidding Process. 50p.
School Facility Financing: A History of the Role of the State Allocation Board and Options for the Distributions of Proposition 1A Funds. [California]
(California Research Bureau, Sacramento, CA , Feb 1999)
In November 1998 California voters passed Proposition 1A, a bond measure that provides $6.7 billion for public K-12 school construction and repair and that establishes two new programs for the disbursement of the funds. This paper provides details regarding these new programs and compares them to programs previously administered by the State Allocation Board. This reviews the history of school construction financing in California and explores the role of the Board, which is responsible for establishing policies for the distribution of school facility financing funds. 43p.Report NO: CRB-99-01
[Illinois] School Construction Capital Development Board - School Construction Law.
(State of Illinois Capital Development Board, Springfield, IL, 1999)
The School Construction Law (Public Act 90-548) was passed by the Illinois General Assembly in December 1997, largely to address the shortage of classroom space due to population growth or aging buildings. To fund the program, the General Assembly approved the sale of $1.1 billion in school construction bonds over the next five years. Includes School Construction Law Project Standards, and Unit Cost Guidelines.
School Construction Assistance Programs.
(MGT of America, Olympia, WA , 1999)
This report summarizes survey data collected from responding Departments of Education in all 50 states concerning the planning and financing of public school facility design and construction. The survey was conducted as part of a study for the New Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Equity Task Force. It does not attempt to address every possible aspect of state school construction assistance programs. It does, however, provide an up-to-date summary of state programs. The survey results are displayed in two formats. The first is a state-by-state written summary, and the second is a pictorial display of data. Accompanying these exhibits are reference notes, as written by the state or compiled from supplemental materials, that further explain their responses to the survey. 83p.
The Deteriorated State of our Schools. [California]
(Huntington Beach Union High School District, Huntington Beach, CA, 1999)
The Huntington Beach Union High School District operates nine schools with over 14,000 students in grades 9-12. Every one of the high schools is in desperate need of repair. Roofs leak. Foundations are cracked, and buildings are sinking. Antiquated plumbing and electrical systems need repair. Every school in the District is facing critical repair needs that will only get worse if they are neglected. This discusses the problems and how the school district is facing them.
Prevailing Wage Laws and School Construction Costs. An Analysis of Public School Construction in Maryland and the Mid Atlantic States.
Prus, Mark J.
(Prince George's County Council, MD , Jan 1999)
This study compares school construction costs in states with prevailing wage laws to those in states without prevailing wage laws in the mid Atlantic region; compares school construction cots within Maryland for those local jurisdictions that pay prevailing wages to costs in those areas where prevailing wage rates are not required; analyzes the extent to which local contractors have been harmed by unfair competition from outside contractors due to the absence of prevailing wage requirements on school construction projects; and examines the extent to which the absence of prevailing wage rates in school construction impacts construction wages across the construction industry. 34p.
Instructional Space Review Form and Information on Changes to State Building Aid. [New York]
Levay, Rita D.; Szuberla, Charles A.
(New York State Department of Education, Office of Facilities Planning, Albany, NY , Dec 1998)
The New York Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) has created a form for school district capital projects involving the construction of new special education space. The form is included along with information on changes to State Building Aid, a new regional cost factor that allows a greater portion of the capital project to be aidable, comparative data on aidable portion of capital project, and annual state and local shares of building projected costs over 15 years. 14p.
Executive's Task Force on School Construction Financing Alternatives. [Washington]
(King County Task Force on Impact Fees/School Construction Financing Alternatives,King County, WA, Nov 30, 1998)
This report outlines 14 recommendations to the Washington State Legislature for speeding up and streamlining the financing of local school construction. Recommendations include directives to improve investment options for the state's Permanent School Fund; change the state standard for construction cost per square foot to reflect actual construction costs; allow school districts the option to acquire facilities with lease/purchase agreements. Compliance with the state's smart growth objectives and reconsidering the state's reliance upon revenues from the timber trustlands to fund K-12 construction.
School Impact Fees in Florida.
(Burke, Weaver & Prell, Boca Raton, FL , Nov 20, 1998)
Discusses the identified statewide need for constructing school facilities and outlines a brief legal history of school impact fees in Florida. The paper reports the results of a 1998 survey of school impact fees in Florida conducted by the author, and ends by discussing some of the issues that distinguish school impact fees from other types of impact fees. 18p.
State Support of Educational Facility Construction: A Policy Study.
Vornberg, James A.; Andrews-Pool, Kimbroly
(Paper presented at the Annual Summer Conference of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Juneau, AL , Aug 04, 1998)
This study examines the extent to which states fund local school district school construction projects and explores the governance of that funding. It determines if the state participates in funding the construction and renovation of educational facilities, the different types of funding assistance that state departments of education provide to local school districts for their educational facilities, and what state-level policymakers and administrators have currently mandated to ensure equity in school facilities for all students. Major findings show most states fund school construction projects utilizing either full funding, equalization grants, percentage matching grants, flat grants, or state loans. Construction funding, however, is a low priority in the majority of states. Thirty-six percent of the states do not address equity among facilities within the state. State distinctions between funds for construction of new facilities and funds for renovation are minimal. Recommendations are offered that include the need for state evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of their current capital outlay provisions, the need for facility equity policies, and a greater need to address the decaying infrastructure of Americas schools. (Contains 10 references.) 27p.
School Finance Issues in the 1998-99 Enacted Budget. [New York]
McCall, H. Carl
(New York State Office of the Comptroller, Albany , Jun 1998)
This report discusses the school aid increase enacted for New York State in 1998-1999. School aid for the year will increase by $850 million. However, it is argued that the Governor's vetoes of the Rebuild Schools to Uphold Education (RESCUE) program and teacher support aid betrays a certain lack of true reform within the budget. Maintains that the changes made will not greatly improve the equity of aid distribution and will have no positive effect on its efficiency. The author cites precise flaws such as changes within the ENA ("extraordinary needs aid"), the ERSSA ("educationally related support services aid"), and the "operating standards aid" programs. Although the proposed budget provides a blanket increase of aid across the state, it does little to target specific problems that individual school districts have with cost effectiveness or efficiency. Speculates the effect that the new budget and the veto of the RESCUE program will have on educational facilities improvement and maintenance. Defines and details the implications of STAR (School Tax Relief), which goes into effect in 1998-1999. Asserts that STAR does not constitute state aid for education, but may actually work against such aid. Provides several possible remedies for the deficiencies of the STAR program.
Financing Facilities in Rural School Districts
Hughes, Mary F.
(Paper presented at the Invitational Conference on Rural School Facilities, Kansas City,MO , May 02, 1998)
This paper addresses how rural school facilities are financed. It provides an overview of school facilities funding in the United States as summarized by the literature, a mini study of school facilities funding in Arkansas, and comments from practitioners and researchers on the issues presented. It argues that the same equity issues raised on expenditure per pupils and equal educational opportunity should be raised in school facility funding too; and educational quality, including that of school facilities, should not rely on the wealth of the local community. Arkansas, one state that does depend on local wealth for the quality of school buildings, is examined in terms of its great diversity between quality and ability to support school facilities. 32p.
Capital Improvement Project Workshops. [Alaska]
(Alaska State Dept. of Education, Juneau/Anchorage, AK , May 1998)
The Alaska Department of Education has developed a workshop addressing the application process for capital improvement funding from the state, e.g., who should apply, applicant eligibility and evaluation criteria, the types of funding available, and project specifics to be included in application submissions. The evaluation and scoring process of applications is explained followed by the lessons that have been learned from past application reviews that will help make the process more complete and fair. Attachments include the application form for funding (Capital Grant or State Aid for Debt Retirement) and instructions for its completion. Appendices provide a breakdown of the phases of capital improvement projects and give explanations behind the application process that include the categories of the grants available, project cost estimates, definitions of maintenance, the current law regarding waiver of participating share/in-kind contributions, and descriptive categories of the types of spaces to be added or improved.
California's School Facilities Predicament.
(EdSource, Inc. Palo Alto, CA , Apr 1998)
This report provides an overview of the difficulties that California faces in determining how much money to invest in school facilities. The text describes the dimensions of the school facility crisis as a whole and looks at the ways in which facilities can affect the quality of education and student performance. It also explores the various options open to both the state and local school districts as they address this challenge. It argues that making a realistic projection about the need is a first step toward a solution. After that, school officials, policymakers, and the public must agree on the minimum quality that they believe is acceptable for school buildings and the optimum quality needed for educational improvements. Decision makers are reminded that schools must meet federal mandates for safety and accessibility. Subsequently, some standards for school facilities are presented. Stakeholders also need to determine the appropriate mix of state and local funding, and one suggestion recommends that the state commit more funds to help schools with maintenance costs. Other possible strategies such as state bonds, local taxes, and developer fees are discussed. 18p.TO ORDER: EdSource, 4151 Middlefield Rd., Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4743; Tel: 650-857-9604
Lease-Purchase Program Applicant Handbook.
(California Department of General Services, State Allocation Board , Apr 1998)
This manual guides applicants through the process of acquiring and managing California state funds for public school facility construction projects. Section 1 focuses on determining eligibility and preparing application packages for Phase P approval and/or apportionment. Section 2 examines regulations and required forms for selecting school sites, including rules for real property appraisals, site purchasing, and relocation assistance. Section 3 focuses on preparing the Estimated Project Cost Detail, Form SAB 506A; and the Summary of Estimated Costs, Form SAB 506B. Section 4 explains the meaning and components of a non-DSA approved construction plan. Section 5 covers the final design and specifications review and approval process. Section 6 explains the bid authorization process. Section 7 addresses the "change order" process for any changes or alterations during project construction. Section 8 discusses close-out audit regulations and forms for reporting project expenditures. Appendices contain explanations and qualification guidelines for satisfying specific allocation programs and district needs such as cost sharing, restricted maintenance accounts, hardship status, abandonment and/or rehabilitation policies, and environmental impact documentation. 123p.
Making Better Decisions about Funding School Facilities
Anderson, Amy; And Others
(Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO , Apr 1998)
This publication identifies the major decision points for policymakers addressing this issue and the key questions to consider, and provides examples of strategies used by other states. Primary decision points examined are whether the condition and funding of school facilities need attention and the indicators supporting this, how state school facility needs can best be determined, and what the state and local role in paying for school facilities is and through what funding mechanisms. Appendixes list how the various states have funded their school facilities. 15p.Report NO: PB-98-3
TO ORDER: ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th St., Suite 2700, Denver, CO 80202-3427
Survey of State Education Finance Legislative Activity and Trends, 1994-1997
Crampton, Faith E.
(American Education Finance Association , Mar 1998)
This paper presents the results of the second annual survey of state school-finance legislation conducted by the Education Finance and Economics Program of the National Education Association's Research Unit. The report, the only comprehensive 50-state survey being conducted, has three major purposes: (1) to provide an annual snapshot of state legislative activity in school finance; (2) to serve as a reference guide for legislative language with regard to particular education-funding areas; and (3) to contribute to the development of a long-term database of school-finance legislation that will allow for trend studies and policy analysis. 159p.
Capital Outlay and Exceptional Growth Programs Overview. [Georgia]
(Georgia State Dept. of Education, Facilities Services Unit, Atlanta, GA , 1998)
The state of Georgia provides funds to assist local school systems in meeting their needs for public school facilities. This overview examines the implementation of Georgia's Capital Outlay and Exceptional Growth Programs initiative, its implementation, the formula used to calculate each school system's entitlement earnings under both the regular Capital Outlay Program and the Exceptional Growth Program; the assessment process of the program; and program funding responsibilities by state, local, and school districts. The document concludes with forms for the scheduling of events of the local facilities plan and the capital outlay project. 8p.
Financing of Construction and Major Maintenance of Public School Facilities. [Alaska]
(Alaska State Department of Education, Juneau , 1998)
The state of Alaska has authorized an educational funding plan that should provide a long-term, stable source of funding for statewide school construction and major maintenance projects. The details of this plan are presented here. It is hoped that by leveraging dedicated cigarette tax revenues to work through the Department of Education school construction might receive adequate funds. The plan will balance the needs of rural and urban school districts, with an emphasis on the early years of major maintenance projects. Such a plan, it is claimed, will keep economic benefits in the state, promote local hiring, and minimize costs by not allowing more than $100 million in state funds for school projects to hit the street in any given year. Furthermore, these monies should provide greater planning certainty for local governments so that they know how their school construction and major maintenance projects will be funded. Details on how the plan works, local share requirements, the financing structure, the mechanics of the financing and disbursement of funds, and the mechanics of debt administration are covered.Report NO: JB 352 & SB 258
TO ORDER: Alaska State Department of Education, P.O. Box 110571, Juneau, AK 99811-0571
State Policies for School Facilities.
(Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO, 1998)
The following information summarizes state and district policies for capital construction and debt service in 1993-94, with definitions of several options, including "pay-as-you-go" financing, reserve funds, general obligation bonds, state/local sharing, flat grants, equalization aid, state loans, and lease-rental financing. A table summarizes state-by-state capital outlay and debt service programs.
State School Facility Programs Overview. [California]
(California State Dept. of General Services, Office of Public School Construction, Sacramento, CA , 1998)
This overview examines California's various State Allocation Board's funding programs for the construction, modernization, and maintenance of local school facilities. Funding information is provided for each program as are explanations of the school facility program construction process and the lease purchase program. The organizational chart for the Office of Public School Construction concludes the document. 7p.
Child-Centered School Funding.
Block, Michael K.; Flake, Jeffry L.; Gifford, Mary; Solmon, Lewis
(Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, AZ , Jan 1998)
This report argues, using Arizona as an illustration, for a market-based school funding paradigm characterized by per-pupil allocations that follow each student to the school of their choice. The report explains what is wrong with the current system, compares the market-based approach to others that have been proposed, and demonstrates how per-pupil funding works in the real world. It argues that the absence of a link between school facilities and educational quality has led to undisciplined costs that will ultimately lead to unsustainable debt. The debate over standards should focus on dollars, not facilities, with the role of the state being as fund provider and letting public school officials to make decisions about facilities. It suggests that the best way to establish the per-pupil dollar standard is to determine how much funding it takes to entice private providers of public education to enter the market. It argues that this dollar amount would allow the vast majority of existing school districts to build new facilities and renovate old ones on a pay-as-you-go basis. Finally, it suggests that public schools should be allowed to seek funding beyond the state provided amount on a voluntary basis. 28p.
A Planner's Guide to Financing Public Improvements. [California]
(California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA, Jun 1997)
A Planner's Guide describes statutory financing options available to California communities. Its primary purpose is to provide city and county planners with a general discussion of methods of public works financing that do not rely on state funds. Chapter 5 discusses new school facilities; chapter 6 covers leasing; chapter 7 describes other methods such as general obligation bonds, joint powers agreements, and pooled financing.
The State of Washington's School Finance System.
Plecki, Margaret L.
(Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association , Mar 1997)
The largest share of Washington's operating budget is devoted to K-12 education. This paper portrays critical features of Washington's school finance system. It first examines current and historical sources and levels of K-12 funding. Next, it analyzes school spending and outlines basic principles underlying Washington's system of collecting and distributing school revenue. The paper also examines school-construction funding and the condition of school facilities, and concludes with a look at the fiscal challenges Washington is likely to face in the near future. Challenges include the increasing number of bilingual students, the need for extensive school repair and replacement, increasing fiscal pressures, and an input-driven funding system that is not aligned with a performance-based educational system. (Contains 16 references.) 18p.
Selected Laws Relating to the Construction and Repair of Public School Facilities in North Carolina.
(North Carolina State Dept. of Public Instruction, Raleigh , Feb 1997)
Schools in North Carolina are governed by numerous laws pertaining to construction and repair. Financial concerns constitute the bulk of these statutes, covering areas such as bids (financial outlay, advertisement, rejecting bids, and withdrawing bids); sources of state funds; the selling or buying of school property; bonds required; capital outlay funds; general loan information such as loan sources, loan terms, securing and paying loans the issuance of bonds, and the computer loan revolving fund; special appropriations; grants; and budgetary parameters. Other statutes dealing with school construction include architectural and engineering services such as specific guidelines on conflict of interest and compliance; basic education programs; classroom sizes; the duties of local boards, of superintendents, of principals, and of teachers; inspections; energy savings contracts; lease properties; long-range plans for school facility needs; the North Carolina Historical Commission; public building contracts; facilities guidelines; repair of damage to school property; replacement of buildings; fire safety and prevention; and vocational programs affiliated with schools. 67p.
Illinois Educational Facilities Authority: Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1996.
(Illinois Educational Facilities Authority, Chicago , 1997)
The Illinois Educational Facilities Authority (IEFA) is a public instrumentality created to provide assistance to not-for-profit, private institutions of higher education. It does so by furnishing the means for such institutions to finance or refinance the construction or acquisition of educational facilities throughout the State. The 1996 annual report of the IEFA is presented here. The report provides information about the members of the authority, advisors to the authority, the creation and operation of the IEFA, and criteria for authority financing. It lists the institutions receiving financial assistance, as well as their financial statements, and includes an auditor's report.
Voter's Choice: The School Facility Health and Safety Bond Act of 1997. [New York City]
(New York City Independent Budget Office, 1997)
Fiscal brief to enhance public understanding of a pending bond act to authorize the state to borrow up to $2.4 billion through the issuance of bonds to fund capital projects related to the construction, expansion, and modernization of public school facilities. Projects that could be funded under the Act are defined to include those addressing serious health and safety needs, expanding physical capacity, enhancing accessibility for people with disabilities, addressing emergency facilities situations, correcting environmental problems, and supporting educational technology.
Meeting School Facilities Needs: A Conceptual Proposal for Consideration in the 1998-99 Budget. [New York]
McCall, H. Carl
(New York State Office of the Comptroller, Albany , 1997)
The recent defeat of New York's statewide School Facilities Bond Act did not eliminate the pressing need for additional funds for school capital needs. This report discusses ways in which the state can meet these needs, shows how "backdoor" borrowing is not an acceptable method of financing school facilities needs, and describes methods for allocating additional funds. It explores ways to acquire building aid for critical projects, particularly under the "building aid formula," which calculates reimbursements based on a varying proportion of expenses incurred. It is recommended that, because the aid formula for distributing funds has been recently revised, any additional aid should be provided strictly on a needs basis, such as in remedying fire, health, and safety problems. The report also recommends a special process that could be used for granting 100 percent reimbursement for the most critical projects in school districts with average or below-average resources; a two-step procedure for this process is outlined. Minor maintenance aid will also need to be addressed, but it is pointed out that aid amounts available for most districts are relatively small in comparison with current maintenance spending. Suggestions for other reform actions are presented. 7p.
School Construction. Background Paper 97-4. [Nevada]
Sturm, H. Pepper
(Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau,Research Division, Carson City, NV , Jan 1997)
Examines the background and current practices in Nevada school construction capital funding and what some other states are doing to fund their school construction projects. Funding policy alternatives are outlined. Policy options addressed involve use of state general obligation bonds, state revenue bonds, state appropriations, and dedicating new or existing revenue on a pay-as-you-go basis. The report reveals that few states provide substantial support for school construction and highlights several court cases where financial equities have been argued. The report cautions that state-level involvement in school construction must also address educational equity for capital expenditures. An appendix provides the historical practices of state assistance for school construction.
Guidelines for Receiving State Capital Outlay Funds. [Georgia]
(Georgia State Dept. of Education, Facilities Services Unit, Atlanta , Nov 1996)
Because receiving capital outlay funds from a state government requires precise reporting, a guide for correct planning is essential. To simplify this reporting process, Georgia's guidelines for receiving funds are presented here. The procedure is divided into three parts: preliminary planning, design and preconstruction, and construction. Discusses how the preliminary planning phase utilizes the state's schedule of events for project administration and provides explicit directions for architect services and preliminary designs and plans, such as educational specifications and coordination of plans. Highlights design and preconstruction considerations including project cost estimates, contract documents, advertising, bidding, overruns, underruns, contract awards, the preconstruction conference, the notice to proceed, and reimbursement. The portion of the report addressing the construction process examines guidelines for the inspection of instruction, the contractors payrolls, any alteration to the contract, accounting records, periodic payments, occupancy prior to completion, final inspection, final payment, and warranty inspection. This step-by-step process is intended to help project managers keep an orderly accounting of state requirements for funds disbursement. 10p.
School Facilities Equity in California: An Empirical Study.
Lowe, Davison Duane
(Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California , 1996)
This is an equity study focusing on the crowdedness and adequacy of California's public school facilities. Facilities data are from a 1988 state survey and include information about building space, age of facilities, air conditioning, and construction type. Three strategies for achieving equity are recommended: (1) increase local fundraising capability by lifting the two-thirds voter requirement for general obligation bonds; (2) devote sufficient state funds to school districts by channeling sufficient funds to school districts, and (3) increase federal support to the states, with particular emphasis on districts at the bottom half of the adequacy distribution. 84p.
[New York] State Education Department Facilities Planning Unit Report.
(New York State Office of the Comptroller, Div. of Management Audit, Albany, NY , 1996)
The Education Department's Facilities Planning unit approves state aid for school-district construction projects outside New York City. This report presents findings of an audit that evaluated whether the Unit management's oversight assured that school construction projects were cost effective and in compliance with the State Building Code. 20p.Report NO: Report 96-D-4
Planning and Financing School Improvement and Construction Projects.
Bittle, Edgar H.
(National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, KS; Education Law Association, Dayton, OH; American Bar Association, Chicago, IL , 1996)
Although a high-quality learning environment is crucial to educating America's youth, numerous studies have shown that the countrys schools are in substandard condition. Suggestions and guidelines to help school administrators, business officials, board members, and others interested in improving school facilities are presented in this book. It opens with an overview of the legal and planning issues that school boards face and provides practical insights from a school administrator for planning and implementing capital improvement projects. It also offers an experienced architect's insights concerning the planning process. Financial concerns that school districts face in planning a capital improvement project are covered, as are considerations for complying with the Americans with Disability Act in building or renovating a building. How to conduct competitive bidding is described, and information on public policy is offered. The last two chapters present a detailed summary of the federal tax and securities laws, which govern the marketing of securities for financing capital improvement projects. It is hoped that this information will help school administrators and others understand the requirements of the federal tax and securities laws. 171p.TO ORDER: Education Law Association
School Facilities Funding [Texas].
(Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) Special Bulletin , Mar 1995)
Examines the Texas Supreme Court's January 1995 final opinion in the Edgewood vs. Meno case, the latest in a series of rulings on the constitutionality of the Texas public school funding system. The first article summarizes the majority opinion, discusses the implications of the court's 5-4 ruling, and suggests that further litigation to equalize funding is almost guaranteed. The second article suggests that, while disparities in educational funding were considerably reduced as a result of the Edgewood vs. Meno litigation, significant inequities remain, especially in regard to school grounds, equipment, and facilities. 11p.
Rethinking School Impact Fees.
(Washington Research Council , Feb 1995)
This study assesses the merits of impact fees as a school finance mechanism, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the statutory framework within which they are imposed in Washington state. As background, the shortcomings of the state’s present system for financing school construction is explained. There is a survey of the use of school impact fees by Washington jurisdictions, and an examination of the operation of impact fees in selected cities, counties and school districts to illustrate some of the issues raised by the present system. Includes a set of recommendations for legislative and administrative actions that might make school impact fees a more equitable, understandable and accountable local revenue source, and perhaps reduce some of the present dissatisfaction with them among both payers and users of the fees. 52p.
School Facilities. States' Financial and Technical Support Varies
(General Accounting Office, Health, Education, and Human Services Div., Washington, DC. , 1995)
This report examines the role of states in supporting school-facilities improvements. Specifically, the study gathered information about state actions to provide funding, technical assistance, and compliance review to school districts. The report also looked at the degree to which states collect and maintain information on the condition of school buildings. Findings indicate that although the construction of school buildings has traditionally been a local responsibility, nearly all states now have some role in school-facilities construction, renovation, and major maintenance. States' involvement in facilities matters varied greatly in terms of the level of financial and technical assistance and compliance review provided. The amount and type of data collected by states also varied greatly. Overall, the data suggest that while most states provide facilities support to school districts, many states do not play a major role in addressing school-facilities issues. However, the extent of states' involvement also depends on state history and philosophy. 34p.Report NO: GAO-HEHS-96-27
Equity and Funding of School Facilities: Are States at Risk?
Crampton, Faith E.; Whitney, Terry N.
(State Legislative Report, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO , Feb 1995)
Inequality in school facilities is emerging as a pivotal factor in court decisions that have ruled state school-funding systems unconstitutional. This report examines cases in Arizona, Ohio, and Texas where courts considered school facilities paramount in ruling the funding system unconstitutional. Arizona's school funding system was the first to be declared unconstitutional based solely on the condition of school facilities. The Ohio court decision detailed a constitutionally acceptable system of school funding. The lack of a separate facilities component in Texas could render the entire school finance system unconstitutional. Because states should not expect significant assistance from the federal government for school facilities, it is recommended that states conduct statewide assessments of the condition of existing school facilities and needed new school construction; develop an equitable funding formula; and mandate the allocation of school aid for routine maintenance. 10p.TO ORDER: National Conference of State Legislatures, 7700 East First Place, Denver, CO 80230; Tel: 303-364-7700
Bursting at the Seams: Report of the Citizens' Commission on Planning for Enrollment Growth. [New York City]
Fernandez, Ricardo R.; Timpane, P. Michael
(New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, NY , 1995)
The independent Citizens' Commission on Planning for Enrollment Growth for New York City has concluded that the school system is experiencing explosive enrollment growth, and that current strategies are incapable of dealing with this growth. Recommendations for coping with this increase include: (1) implementation of a pilot plan to convert schools to a year-round calendar; (2) increasing relative use of leasing, rather than new construction, as a strategy to increase space; (3) expansion of efforts to form collaboratives with higher education and nonprofit organizations; (4) expanding the relocation of administrative offices from school space; (5) rezoning overutilized schools; (6) promoting interdistrict cooperation; (7) establishing magnet and special program schools in underutilized facilities; (8) reforming placement for special education; (9) using connections with the business community to find space; (10) seeking increased federal funding; and (11) establishing a bonding authority dedicated to school space. 75p.
School Construction Specification and Financing. National Survey Data, 1994.
MGT of America
(MGT of America, Inc., Tallahassee, FL , Jun 1994)
Survey data and exhibits are presented from all 50 states concerning the planning and financing of public school facility design and construction. Survey results are displayed in two formats. The first is a pictorial display of the data that shows each Department of Education's responses on a United States map. Accompanying these exhibits are reference notes, as written by the states or compiled from supplemental materials, that further explain their responses to the survey. The second format is in Appendix A and shows a copy of the questionnaire with a frequency distribution of the responses to each question. Appendix B lists the survey's respondents.
Nebraska School Facilities: Educational Adequacy of Structures and Their Funding.
Pool, Dennis L.
(Paper presented at the Annual Rural and Small School Conference, Manhattan, KS , Oct 1993)
In 1991, Nebraska school superintendents and building administrators were surveyed about the physical condition of school facilities, their adequacy for instruction, and each district's fiscal capacity to maintain and construct school facilities. Responses were analyzed by five categories: class (size) of school district, quartile of valuation per pupil, population change category on the 1990 county census, time period of facility construction, and instructional type of building (grade range). Overall, 40 percent of administrators felt that their facilities impeded desired changes in instructional programming, and 55 percent of buildings were not completely handicapped accessible. However, there were significant differences among districts by size, fiscal capacity, and recent population change. Small school districts reported higher rates of inadequate buildings, low sinking fund rates, little bond debt, and little confidence that bond issues would be successful. K-12 school buildings were reported only in small districts, usually districts experiencing population decline; most buildings were 40-90 years old and contained uncomfortable and obsolete classrooms. The inequity resulting from dependence on property tax for funding of school facilities construction means that poorer districts do not have the potential to construct or upgrade facilities. Statewide recommendations are outlined. 9p.
Pacific Region School Finance and Facilities Study.
Kawakami, Alice J., Ed.
(Pacific Region Educational Laboratory, Honolulu, HI , 1993)
A study of school financing and facilities was conducted in the ten American-affiliated Pacific entities of the United States: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. School finance data was collected for the 1991 fiscal year, and school facilities data were collected from 1991 through 1992. The study found a wide range in the financing of schools in the region as well as in the availability and condition of school facilities. 60p.
No Room for Johnny: a New Approach to the School Facilities Crisis.
Shapell, Nathan, et al
(Little Hoover Commission, Sacramento, CA , Jun 30, 1992)
A study was conducted to discover ways to improve California school district facilities improvement processes so that the state can accommodate the increasing numbers of students projected by the year 2000. This report presents findings and recommendations that address the following three primary problem areas the state confronts: funding; process; and policy requirements. The first issue addressed is that California cannot afford to be an endless source for school facilities spending and that its primary interest in school facilities is to ensure equity for students. The second issue is that California is micro-managing school construction projects, thus delaying the completion of and driving up the cost of school facilities. The third issue is that California state policies and requirements are either blocking or not promoting long-range planning and creative asset management practices for school districts. It stresses that each area hampers districts at a time when they need to move quickly and decisively to meet the needs of students. A new funding dynamic is recommended that places California in partnership with districts not able to meet their needs, but still allows them autonomy over their own schools. 138p.
Statewide School Facilities Needs Assessment Study: Comparison of State Construction Assistance Programs.
(MGT of America, Inc., Tallahassee, FL , Mar 1992)
This survey presents school facility funding, technology, and non-traditional programs currently used in the public school educational systems of twelve states. Each state reveals its current appropriation, funding source(s), local matching ratio, eligibility criteria, priority factors and weights, use of space standards, periodic needs assessment, technology enhancements, and non- traditional use of public school facilities. Appendices contain a detailed list of priority factors and weights for Alaska, Florida, and Maine; and the survey form used to gather the data. 39p.
You're Really Efficient and Effective: Does It Cost More? [California]
(Oxnard School District, CA , 1992)
This document addresses the concept of a year-round educational system (YRES), the associated costs of an extended school year, the operational costs for single and multi-track YRES calendars, and the potential for the avoidance of capital costs in multi-track calendars. Topics include the reduction of class size with YRES, California's YRES incentive funding program and the state's interest in the year-round school concept, and ideas for getting American schools into year-round systems. 33p.TO ORDER: Oxnard School District, 1051 South "A" St., Oxnard, CA 93030; Tel: 805-487-3918
How Public Schools Are Financed.
Wood, R. Craig; Honeyman, David S.
(Association of School Business Officials International, Reston, VA , 1991)
After summarizing the philosophy behind the financing of public schools, this document reviews the division of legal responsibility for education between the state and federal governments; outlines the state's responsibility for providing an equal educational opportunity for its residents; and summarizes the use of federal revenues, state revenues, and local tax revenues, with emphasis on property taxes, to fund public education. Current and recent issues surrounding the equity of school finance formulas are described, including taxpayer equity, the taxpayer's ability to pay, and horizontal and vertical equity. Following a brief history of school finance plans, an overview of three methods used to allocate funds is provided.
Financing School Construction. [New York]
(New York State Department of Education, Reference Guide A.8, Albany, NY, 1990)
The successful completion of a school construction project is the end result of careful and thoughtful planning. No school construction project would be complete without a financial plan being established. Construction projects and site purchases may be financed by any one, or any combination of, capital reserve fund, current budgetary appropriation, or borrowed money. While the first two methods avoid interest costs, most districts find it necessary and/or desirable to finance part or all of the cost of large projects by borrowing.
Methods of Financing Educational Facilities in the United States.
Thompson, David C.
(University Council for Educational Administration, Manhattan, KS , 1990)
In February 1990, special hearings were held by the Kansas Senate and House Education Committees on the physical condition of school facilities. This document offers a three-part synopsis: a brief and selective review of the testimony given in February 1990; an overview of general finance methods; and a state-by-state executive summary of the individual states' facility finance provisions. The testimony argued that for legal, ethical, and economic reasons Kansas should consider assisting districts with their facility needs; more generally, there is a history of litigation that intimates that states may increasingly be held responsible for assisting local districts. In regard to finance methods, capital outlay as an issue of equity has been subjected to three standards: resource accessibility, wealth neutrality, and taxpayer effort. Currently 30 states provide some true grant-in-aid assistance, and 35 states provide either grants or loans. The methods are generally: (1) full state support; (2) equalization grants; (3) matching grants; (4) flat grants; (5) state loans; and (6) building authorities. In the third part, details of individual state methods are provided in alphabetical order by state. (17 references) 20p.
[Kansas] State Involvement in Capital Outlay Financing: Policy Implications for the Future
Thompson, David C.; et.al
This monograph addresses the issues surrounding financing school buildings. Kansas finances school buildings from the property tax base of the school district in which the building is located. Research in Kansas indicates that inequities in facilities will widen among its 304 school districts, 80 percent of which are rural. The monograph evaluates the legal potential for state responsibility to aid facilities in Kansas and provides recommendations for state involvement. It describes court litigation involving the issue of facilities funding. If research shows a relationship between facility adequacy and instructional outcomes, then courts will likely follow with mandates that the states bring their school buildings into compliance with predetermined minimum standards for describing adequacy for instructional facilities. 56p.
Financing the School Plant. [California]
King, Dave; Kimbrough, Ted
(Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International, Columbus, OH , 1982)
Thirteen methods of financing school buildings in California are described. A brief introduction reviews recent changes in California school financing, following passage of Proposition 13, and explains the need for new financing methods. For each method, the document provides a description, implementation procedures, funding sources, legal authority, and sources of further information. 33p.
Urban School Construction: A Case Study of Alternative Financing Methods for St. Louis, Missouri.
Fitzgibbon, James; And Others
(Educational Facilities Laboratories, New York, NY , 1971)
The authors, after discussing the St. Louis school system and its financial history, survey both traditional and innovative construction finance alternatives used across the country. The authors summarize the potential transactions between two groups: (1) a school board, the city, the State, and the Federal Government; and (2) public corporations, private developers, and money sources. The authors conclude that lease-purchasing plans suggest the most promising solutions to St. Louis' educational facilities needs. 76p.
References to Journal Articles
Identifying and Funding the Greatest Needs in School Facilities
Gorrell, Bob; Salamone, Frank
Educational Facility Planner; v46 n1 , p30-34 ; Jun 2012
Describes a solution that New Mexico has developed to overcome key challenges common to school programs across the country. The new NM-PSFA system identifies schools and projects ranked according to facilities condition, educational adequacy, and other priorities, and the corresponding need for funding.
Funding Building Projects in a Tough Economy
District Administration; Apr 2012
Outlines sources for hidden funding to help construct and maintain school buildings, including local and state tax revenues, with some limited support from state and small federal initiatives; Local School Construction Bonds and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds; Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program and the Impact Aid Facilities Maintenance Program; Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program and the State Charter School Incentive Grants Program; Department of Defense Military Construction Program; State Energy Program Grants; Department of Agriculture Rural Community Facilities Program. Also describes competitive grant funds from federal or state agencies or from private grants awarded by community and corporate foundations.
A Look Ahead: Trends 2012
Thorburn, Steven; Schoff, Larry; Ramsey, John; Canady, Mo; and Edelstein, Fritz
School Planning and Management; , p12-16 ; Jan 2012
Experts make projections concerning the education system for the year 2012 in the areas of technology, energy, state and local politics, safety and security, and federal issues.
New Mexico's Model for Funding School Facilities' Greatest Needs.
Gorrell, Robert and Salamone, Frank
School Business Affairs; , p8-12 ; Nov 2011
New Mexico's assessment and ranking model, widely regarded as a national best practice, is its primary tool for allocating state capital to school facilities' needs. Describes New Mexico's adequacy standards, dynamic facilities ranking, modeling facility deficiencies dynamically, and systems performance and value.
Audit of the Procurement Activities at the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization.
(Office of the Inspector General, Government of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Jun 29, 2011)
Details five findings that describe conditions found during this audit. These are: 1) OPEFM does not have finalized procurement rules. 2) The emergency procurement rules adopted by OPEFM on August 10, 2007, did not contain necessary provisions and contained provisions that were not consistent with existing procurement laws. 3) OPEFM did not obtain the required number of quotations prior to selecting a contractor on the DCSS to provide legal and procurement consulting services. 4) A conflict of interest for an attorney who is a partner at a law firm that drafts solicitations and contracts for OPEFM. 5) The Executive Director of OPEFM hired his Chief of Staff as a contractor instead of a government employee. 41p.
Saving Public Education.
School Planning and Management; v50 n4 , p98 ; Apr 2011
Illustrates the abandonment of public education consciousness as expressed in the de-funding of school facilities efforts.
American School and University; v83 n5 , p12-14,16-24 ; Jan 2011
Forecasts issues for schools in 2011. Subjects addressed include funding, class size, bond issues, community colleges, security, construction, sustainability, maintenance and operations, technology integration, and enrollment.
Outlook for Education in 2011.
School Planning and Management; v50 n1 , p6 ; Jan 2011
Describes the impending decrease in federal assistance to states, and cuts made at state levels in response.
Good Riddance to 2010.
School Planning and Management; v49 n12 , p6 ; Dec 2010
Presents editorial content on 2011's economic recovery and compares oppotunities for moving ahead to the five stages of grief.
Reincarnation of Rebates. [New Energy Efficiency Programs and Financing Mechanisms Available.]
Building Operating Management; v57 n12 , p37,38,40,42 ; Dec 2010
Discusses the recent surge in rebates for energy-saving building upgrades. Funds and tax-credits are made available by utilities and governments at all levels. Measurements and documentation to prove savings are addressed. Four recently developed rebate programs, as well as four novel financing strategies are also described.
The Loophole Effect.
Murray, Kenneth; Murray, Barbara
American School Board Journal; v197 n12 , p36-38 ; Dec 2010
Explains how multistate corporations can use loopholes in tax codes to pay less taxes and thus, to provide minimal support to school systems. The strategies of Passive Investment Companies, Real Estate Invest Trusts, nexus isolation, and captive insurance companies are detailed.
Challenges for the New Governors.
School Planning and Management; v49 n11 , p6 ; Nov 2010
Dicusses continuing financial pressures on states and their school programs, with dropout rates increasing, but economic recovery and full funding still elusive.
An Examination of Capital Outlay Funding Mechanisms in Oklahoma.
Johnson, Carl; Maiden, Jeffrey
Journal of Education Finance; v36 n1 , 1-21 ; Summer 2010
Explores fiscal interrelationships that underlay capital outlay funding, including the differences between rural and non-rural school districts. The study additionally focuses on the relationships between various capital outlay funding components and student achievement. The analysis determined the extent to which these specific factors affected spending by including two levels of rurality as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau along with SES, current expenditures, local wealth, and local support as variables. Rural and non-rural were found to be significantly different in net assessed valuation and capital outlay expenditure, but not bond passage rate. Socioeconomic status was significantly related to and a predictor of capital outlay expenditures. Capital outlay expenditure, net assessed valuation, nor rurality was significantly related to student achievement. The study identified how these capital outlay funding mechanisms in Oklahoma are related to one another and the effect they have as a group and individually on the ability of local educational leaders to address facility needs.TO ORDER: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_education_finance/v036/36.1.johnson.html
Crux of the Problem.
School Planning and Management; v49 n7 , p66 ; Jul 2010
Discusses the obsolete mode of taxing property to fund schools, in this era where ownership of property does not necessarily reflect wealth.
Sale, Lois; Womack, Jay
American School and University; v82 n7 , p26,28,30 ; Mar 2010
Discusses grant sources for "green" school facility construction or renovation. Matching the grant with the nature of the project and seeking donations, community sponsorships, and in-kind contributions are also discussed.
Identifying and Mitigating Sources of School Revenue Erosion.
Prombo, Michael; Dalianis, Ares; Metcalf, Scott
School Business Affairs; v75 n8 , p14-16 ; Sep 2009
Advises on how identify and counter threats made to school district revenue by shifts in tax collection. Tax increment financing districts, property tax reduction litigation, property tax abatement, impact fees, and depressed economic conditions are discussed.
Inside Higher Ed; Jun 2009
Reviews how the Los Angeles Community College District is in the midst of a bond-funded building boom, even while statewide budget cuts have dramatically reduced programs.
Guide to Financing EnergySmart Schools.
School Planning and Management; v48 n4 , p46,48,50 ; Apr 2009
Describes opportunities for obtaining funding to create energy-efficient school, emphasizing new federal programs included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as ongoing grants and tax credits. Advice on organizing a strong case for federal and state funding is included.
American School and University; v81 n7 , p40,42-44 ; Mar 2009
Identifies sources of funding to help build "green" schools, including federal and state programs, foundation grants, and partnerships with business.
Spending on School Infrastructure: Does Money Matter?
Journal of Educational Administration; v47 n3 , p305-322 ; 2009
Furthers development of an emerging thread of quantitative research that grounds investment in school infrastructure in a unified theoretical framework of investment in human, social, and physical capital. The author uses canonical analysis, a multivariate statistical approach that allows for multiple independent and dependent variables. Level of student poverty is added as a control variable given an extensive body of research that supports its negative impact on achievement. Descriptive statistics are generated as well as a Pearson product moment correlation matrix to diagnose and address potential issues of multicollinearity and simultaneity. Three national databases are used: United States Census Bureau, US Department of Educations National Assessment of Educational Progress test score data, and the US Department of Educations Common Core of Data. Years analyzed are 2003, 2005, and 2007. The findings indicate that investment in human, social, and physical capital accounts for between 55.8 and 77.2 percent of the variation in student achievement in fourth and eighth grade reading and mathematics. Investment in human capital is consistently the largest influence on student achievement followed by social and physical capital.TO ORDER: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=
School Facilities Funding and Capital-Outlay Distribution in the States.
Duncombe, William; Wang, Wen
Journal of Education Finance; v34 n3 , p324-350 ; Winter 2009
Traditionally, financing the construction of school facilities has been a local responsibility. In the past several decades, states have increased their support for school facilities. Using data collected from various sources, this study first classifies the design of capital aid programs in all 50 states into various categories based on the scope of state aid, selection of capital projects, method of grant distribution, and formula components of the grant. Using NCES finance data from 1998 to 2002, we examine the relationship between the type of facilities aid program and the level of inequality in capital-outlay distribution in the states. [Authors' abstract]
The School Administrator; v66 n1 , p10-15 ; Jan 2009
Describes how four school districts experience failed bond elections, and then rebounded with wins by being more transparent to the community, involving the community in decision making, and exerting a special effort to gain the trust of former "no" voters.
Stimulus for Schools.
Maintenance Solutions; v17 n1 , p6,7 ; Jan 2009
Describes the Los Angeles Unified School District's expansive capital improvement program, funded by five bond measures totaling $20 billion. The project has so far created 76 new schools, 59 additions, and 18,000 modernization projects. The involvement of facilities department in reviewing designs for maintainability is discussed, as are major renovations to two large high schools.
Getting a Piece of the Pie: Schools Need to Be Proactive, Flexible When Pursuing Stimulus Funding.
Educational Facility Planner; v43 n4 , p12-15 ; 2009
Outlines how funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009 may be made available for school facility needs in states that choose to direct them there. Examples of school facility needs in a number of districts that do and do not anticipate receiving federal funds for school facilities are included. Two types of tax credit bonds are also described, as are steps school districts should take toward receiving funding.
The High School "Space Race": Implications of a School-Choice Market Environment for a Michigan Metropolitan Region.
Militello, Mathhew; Metzger, Scott; Bowers, Alex
Education and Urban Society; v41 n1 , 30p. ; Nov 2008
Examines the implications of competition between school districts in a mid-Michigan metropolitan area. Over the past decade, many urban and suburban districts have found themselves competing over per-pupil state funding. Suburban districts need extra students in order to make up budgetary shortfalls and protect instructional programs that are essential in today's political climate of school accountability. Several districts in this study have built new or substantially renovated state-of-the-art high schools, possibly signaling a "space race" between the districts to build bigger, better, newer capital assets in order to attract more students. The central-city district, surrounded by growing suburbs with higher-value taxable property, is at a disadvantage in this competition. [Authors' abstract]
The Housing Boom (and Bust), Property Taxes, and Schools.
School Business Affairs; v74 n7 , p12-14 ; Jul-Aug 2008
Explains how property tax shifts from commercial to residential properties affect homeowners and school district revenues. Misconceptions about the relationship between assessments, tax rates, and school income are discussed, as are the varying effects on school districts of recent rises in property values.
Funding for the Next Generation.
Maintenance Solutions; v16 n4 , p6,8 ; Apr 2008
Discusses the success of Oregon's West Linn-Wilsonville School District in passing school bonds. Each bond issue typically proposes funding for a variety of projects, thus helping to ensure community-wide support.
Growth and Infrastructure Costs: Legal Constraints for Shifting the Tax Burden.
School Business Affairs; v74 n4 , p18,20-22 ; Apr 2008
Reviews legal challenges to property tax formulas to fund schools, with particular attention to actions in California and Florida. Remedies and alternative funding instruments are discussed, including capping of property assessments, lower assessments for long-term residents, and impact fees. Includes 20 references.
Formula for Success: Building an Equation for School Construction.
School Business Affairs; v74 n4 , p8,10-12 ; Apr 2008
Details the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools' technique for prioritizing school capital improvements by means of complex calculations involving demographics, enrollment, facility condition, and type of project. The system promotes equity and helps avoid politicization of the process.
Massachusetts Unlocks $2.5B for Schools.
School Planning and Management; v47 n1 , p96 ; Jan 2008
Reviews Massachusetts release of long-awaited funding for school construction and renovation. The disbursement of funds follows a statewide assessment of school buildings, with funds going first to the neediest facilities. A short description of how the assessment was conducted is included.
Outlook 2008: What's ahead for Educational Facilities and Business in the New Year and Beyond.
School Planning and Management; v80 n5 , p14-16,18-26 ; Jan 2008
Predicts 2008 trends in school enrollment, construction, sustainability, maintenance, indoor air quality, security, technology, business and finance, and energy use.
Communities Need More Flexibility in School Design.
Primer; v2 n9 ; Nov 2007
Sets forth 36 recommendation of an Ohio working group, emphasizing empowering local districts with flexibility in school planning, funding, and design. Beginning with the assessment process, the recommendations encourage local options geared toward educational outcomes rather than statewide formulas, increased accommodation for building renovation, flexibility throughout the design process, and general relief from the prescriptive state mandates.
Spending Dollars for Excellence.
School Planning and Management; v46 n11 , p58 ; Nov 2007
Responds to a New York state program to give extra funding to school districts, to be spent on any of five strategies to improve student achievement. The author considers the positive and negative aspects of each strategy, discusses how the districts are planning to use the money, and the often-unfunded facility implications of some of the strategies.
Managing the K-12 Portfolio.
Building Design and Construction; v48 n7 , p43,44,46 ; Jun 2007
Reviews how the city of New Haven, Connecticut, is managing a program to build five new schools and renovate seven others. Financing and project management are covered.
American School and University; Jan 2007
Schools and universities are having success at securing funding for new facilities, as well as for growing repair and retrofit needs. 2006 was a record-breaking year in terms of the number of school-construction bond issues proposed (920) and passed (603). It also set a record for the largest total-dollar-amount proposed ($51.2 billion) and passed (almost $40 billion).
School Construction and Renovation Spending: Who's Benefiting?
Vincent, Jeff; Filardo, Mary
Educational Facility Planner; v42 n1 , p26-30 ; 2007
Summarizes recent data that shows a doubling of school construction spending from 1995 to 2004, how the money was divided between new construction and renovation, how the states compare in spending, reasons for the increase, and that the disparity of spending by community income was greater than both the disparities by race and family income. Charts and 12 references accompany the text.
Making Plans for School Designs of the Future.
School Construction News; v9 n2 , p30,31 ; Mar-Apr 2006
Presents an interview with North Carolina's chief of school planning, in which he discusses North Carolina school funding mechanisms and priorities, prototype schools, trends in K-12 school design, and CPTED.
State of the States.
Education Week; v25 n17 , 72-98 passim ; Jan 05, 2006
This tenth of edition of an annual report uses more than 100 indicators to track education information and grade the states on their policy efforts. Tables under "School Climate" report on school size, class size, facility condition, and facility funding.
Taj Mahals or Decaying Shacks: Patterns in Local School Capital Stock and Unmet Capital Need
Arsen, David; Davis, Thomas
Peabody Journal of Education; v81 n4 , p1-22 ; 2006
Despite growing interest in the condition of school facilities as a dimension of school finance adequacy, reliable measures of capital stock for large samples of schools are hard to come by. In this article, we offer new methods for (a) measuring the existing capital stock of public schools, (b) defining adequacy in school facilities, and (c) measuring the cost of bringing existing school facilities up to an adequate standard. We apply our procedures to all school districts in Michigan, one of the few states that offers no state aid to local districts for the construction of capital facilities. Our estimates indicate large variations in school buildings and facilities across local communities that are highly correlated with local property wealth. Because we use publicly available data that are recently available for school districts nationwide, these methods can be readily replicated for other states. [Authors' abstract]TO ORDER: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a785831076
Capital Budgeting Practices in Public Higher Education.
Manns, Derrick; Katsinas, Stephen
Facilities Manager; v22 n1 , p36-42 ; Jan-Feb 2006
Details research revealing that 90% of states do not require their public institutions of higher education to set aside general operating funds for facility renewal and replacement, 65% of states do not have a statewide higher education facilities plan, 75% of states do not use funding formulas in capital funding requests for higher education, and that states lack comparative data on these issues. Includes 13 references.
Education Week; v24 n17 , p60,62,64,65,66,68,70,72,74,75 ; Jan 06, 2005
Summarizes the school funding systems of all fifty states, citing unusual system configurations and litigation that has affected allocations.
State of the States.
Education Week; v24 n17 , p77,78,80 ; Jan 06, 2005
Describes many indicators states use to measure the quality of their systems. Two of the tables included cite school safety ratings and commitment to quality facilities.
New Jersey Schools Agency Pushes to Be Best in Class.
Rubin, Debra K.; Korman, Richard
ENR: Engineering News-Record; v253 n18 , p34-36 ; Nov 08, 2004
Objectively discusses the accomplishments of the New Jersey School Construction Corporation, while citing difficulties in site acquisition, funding uncertainties, cost overruns, political turmoil, and labor issues.
School Facilities: The State Department's Influence.
Holt, Carleton; Smith, Roland; Capps, Matthew
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice; v1 n3 , p6-10 ; Oct 2004
Focuses on the importance of consulting with the state department of education regarding construction regulations and alternative levels of funding. To determine the involvement of this agency, a survey with state department facilities directors was conducted in six mid-south states, and the results summarized in this article. These results demonstrate the differing levels of state involvement in local school bond or millage levies.
A New Approach in Chicago.
School Planning and Management; v43 n7 , p8 ; Jul 2004
Describes Chicago's "Renaissance 2010 Neighborhood Schools Program," which aims to turn around the city's most troubled elementary and high schools by creating 100 new small neighborhood schools by 2010. One-third of the schools will be run by Chicago Public Schools, the other two-thirds as charter or contract schools. Civic and corporate entities are contributing financial and technical support.
Mayors and School Districts.
School Planning and Management; v43 n3 , p16,18-20,22 ; Mar 2004
Discusses the increased involvement of mayors in education and school facilities issues. Examples of programs from seven metropolitan areas illustrate creative partnerships and programs that build, reuse, or reorganize school facilities.
A Billion-Dollar Building Boom.
(National School Boards Association, Alexandia, VA, Feb 2004)
American School Board Journal: Education Vital Signs; , 5p. ; Feb 2004
Describes ways that some states are funding much-needed school construction in the midst of very tight budgets. Programs from North Carolina, Georgia, California, Arizona, Connecticut, and Washington are described.
State Prevailing Wage Laws and School Construction Costs.
Azari-Rad, Hamid; Philips, Peter;and Prus, Mark J.
Industrial Relations; v42 n3 , p445 ; Jul 2003
Critics of prevailing wage laws claim that their elimination will cut total public construction costs by 15 to 25 percent. Justification for this assertion may be found in a 1983 study comparing the cost of public construction regulated by the Davis-Bacon Act with the cost of similar private construction. However, this study failed to account for the difference in the cost of public and private buildings absent . Using F. W. Dodge data for 1991 to 1999, we show that the inclusion of the appropriate controls in a study of new school construction costs finds no statistically significant difference between the cost of public schools built with prevailing wage regulations. [Authors' abstract]TO ORDER: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/
American School Board Journal; v190 n6 , p26-29 ; Jun 2003
Describes how various states and school districts are coping with the need to repair, renovate, or replace schools built during the 1950s and 1960s. Discusses New Jersey's Abbott districts, Ohio, North Carolina's Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district, and the Albany, New York school district.
Building Our Future: A Look at the Ohio School Facilities Commission.
Educational Facility Planner; v38 n1 , p3-5 ; 2003
Describes the establishment, function, and building record of the Ohio School Facilities Commission. The Commission is an independent state agency founded in 1997 to provide funding, management oversight, and technical assistance in the construction and renovation of school facilities.
The Condition of America's Schools: A National Disgrace.
Crampton, Faith E.; Thompson, David C.
School Business Affairs; v68 n11 , p15-19 ; Dec 2002
Investigates state unmet funding needs for school infrastructure. Finds an estimated total of 6.1 billion in unmet funding needs. Provides state-by-state estimates of unmet funding that range from 0.1 million in Vermont to .6 billion in New York. Compares urban and rural infrastructure needs. Includes recommendations for school business administrator action. (17 references)
Support for School Construction: Blending Sales Tax With Property Tax.
Haney, David W.; Schmidt, Mark
School Business Affairs; v68 n11 , p34-37 ; Dec 2002
Describes how opinion by North Dakota's attorney general allows school district and city of Jamestown to collaborate in the issuance of bonds for school construction and renovation projects, three-quarters of the revenue for which is raised by a voter-approved city sales tax.
The State of Funding School Facilities' Needs in the United States.
Sielke, Catherine C.
School Business Affairs; v68 n11 , p23-27 ; Dec 2002
Investigates variations in state funding programs for school building needs. Includes table of 2001-02 primary state aid programs for school facilities. Also describes use of local voter-approved bond issues to fund local school construction. Includes table of 2001-02 state bond programs, debt limits, and state aid for debt. Discusses emerging funding issues.
Building on the Installment Plan.
American School Board Journal; v189 n10 , p44-46 ; Oct 2002
Describes how Greenville (South Carolina) Board of Education used installment purchase arrangement, coupled with a nonprofit corporation, to finance school construction.
Financing Facilities. Who Pays for School Construction, and How Much? Recent Litigation is Likely to Alter the Landscape of Construction Funding.
Augenblick, John; Silverstein, Justin
American School Board Journal; v189 n10 , p40-42 ; Oct 2002
Reviews several issues having implications for the future nature and funding of school construction, including recent state educational adequacy and equity litigation, smaller class sizes, full-day kindergartens, educational technology, and charter schools.
State of Support.
American School and University; v75 n2 , p18-26 ; Oct 2002
Discusses how the continued aging of school facilities, the inability of many local districts to generate enough funds for needed upgrades, and legal rulings that have directed states to assume a greater role in paying for facilities have resulted in building improvements that would have been far beyond the means of local districts a few years ago.
Standards and Education Reform.
Moore, Deborah P.
School Planning and Management; v41 n10 , p14-19,42-43 ; Oct 2002
Offers a state-by-state description of funding, facilities, and technology standards related to education and contact information for relevant personnel.
Energy Efficiency in Schools: State Incentive Options.
National Conference of State Legislatures Legisbrief; v10 n39 , 2p. ; Oct 2002
Several states have enacted incentives to help school districts reduce their exposure to volatile energy prices and save money by being more energy efficient. Primarily, assistance for energy efficiency in schools takes the form of grants or loans. This takes a look at actions taken in California, Indiana, Missouri, Oregon, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas, and Massachusetts.
Financing Solutions for Fiscal Stress: Public-Private Partnerships.
Facilities Manager; v18 n5 , p69-71 ; Sep-Oct 2002
Discusses public-private partnerships in university construction, including Virginia's Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, and tax-exempt leasing.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission.
Fischer, Randy; Humbel, Denny
School Planning and Management; v41 n6 , p65-68 ; Jun 2002
Describes the Ohio School Facilities Commission, whose mission is to provide funding, management oversight, and technical assistance to Ohio's 612 school districts for the construction and renovation of school facilities. Discusses the commission's actions at various stages of the construction process.
Lesson Plans Are Being Reworked To Stretch Construction Dollars.
Rubin, Debra K.; Rosta, Paul; Gonchar, Joann; Illia, Tony
ENR: Engineering News-Record; v248 n18 , p30-33 ; May 13, 2002
This article looks at the current school construction situation in Ohio, Arizona, Idaho, Michigan, California, New York, and New Jersey. While school-related capital programs in many towns, cities and regions are still flush with cash and generating a boom market for engineers, architects and contractors, increasingly, those purse strings are being pulled tighter as states face budget pressures and taxpayers are less willing to underwrite the bill.
Short-Term Effects of State Deregulation on the Adequacy and Equity of School Facility Projects.
Kowalski, Theodore J.; Decman, John C.
Education Leadership Review; v3 n1 , p26-31 ; Winter 2002
In 1995, the Indiana Legislature deregulated state controls over public-school construction projects by reducing the status of required specifications to guidelines. Also, local taxpayers were given greater authority to prevent proposed projects. This study examines the short-term effects of this policy shift. (Contains 5 tables and 16 references.)
Texas State Support for School Facilities, 1971 to 2001.
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n2 , p683-700 ; Fall-Winter 2001
Reviews 30 years of state efforts to support school-facilities construction and renovation in Texas. Describes recent state programs to provide direct funding for school facilities: Instructional Facilities Allotment, Existing Debt Allotment, and New Instructional Facilities Allotment. Although state funding of school facilities has increased, inequities in facilities among districts remain.
Creating and Sustaining School Capacity in the Twenty-First Century: Funding a Physical Environment Conducive to Student Learning.
Crampton, Faith E.; Thompson, David C.; Hagey, Janis M.
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n2 , p633-52 ; Fall 2001
Results of state-by-state study of unmet school infrastructure needs using multiple data sources. Found that aggregate unmet infrastructure needs of $266.1 billion were significantly larger than found in earlier studies and varied substantially among states. Suggests different short- and long-term funding strategies to address problem. Includes five appendices.
The Impact of Litigation on School Facilities Funding in Ohio.
Edlefson, Carla; Barrow, Robert
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n2 , p701-12 ; Fall 2001
Describes Ohio's efforts to fund school facilities following a state court decision that Ohio's Constitution required adequate facilities. Explores political and economic factors for relative success of state programs to fund school facilities. Despite these efforts, voter-approved bond issues remain the principal means of funding facilities.
New Schools for a New Millennium: Court-Mandated School Facilities Construction in New Jersey.
Erlichson, Bari Anhalt
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n2 , p663-82 ; Fall-Winter 2001
Describes history of state school-finance litigation and legislative efforts related to the construction and renovation of school facilities in New Jersey. Provides a detailed description of the Educational Facilities Construction and Finance Act. Discusses current status and challenges in implementing the act, concluding with an analysis of unresolved issues.
Funding School Infrastructure Needs across the States.
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n2 , p653-62 ; Fall 2001
Compares state funding for school infrastructure needs between 1993-94 and 1998-99. Found 164 percent increase in state infrastructure funding. Examines state funding mechanisms such as flat grants, equalized grants, categorical grants, and full-state funding. Fourteen states provide no state infrastructure funding; most rely instead on voter-approved bonds.
Arizona Takes on School Construction and Renovation.
Geiger, Philip E.
School Business Affairs; v67 n8 , p76-79 ; Aug 2001
Spurred by a state superior court deadline for developing a constitutional school capital finance system, Arizona Governor Jane Hull signed legislation (Students FIRST) that dramatically reformed school construction. This legislation created a School Facilities Board and established three funds for improving school conditions and meeting building adequacy guidelines.
State Spotlight: Look Who's Got It Together.
School Planning and Management; v40 n8 , p21-23 ; Aug 2001
Presents examples of what state government initiatives can do to jump-start a school district's educational technology plans. Examines effective state initiatives from Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
Financing Education in the Twenty-first Century: What State Legislative Trends of the 1990s Portend.
Crampton, Faith E.
Journal of Education Finance; v27 n1 , p479-500 ; Summer 2001
Reviews 1999 school finance legislation, analyzes 1994-99 state education finance activity, and discusses established and emergent trends in funding for school infrastructure, educational technology, charter schools, student achievement (class-size reduction, school-year extensions, reading instruction, and alternative placements), teacher quality, and early childhood education. (Contains 104 references.)
Doling Out Facilities Aid Proves Tricky.
Sandham, Jessica L.
Education Week; v20 n41 , p21-24 ; Jun 20, 2001
Discusses how state courts are forcing states to shift their focus of funding for school facilities to the neediest school districts. State problems in prioritizing the distribution of school funds are examined. [Free subscriber registration is required.]
Johnston, Robert C.
Education Week; v20 n40 , p32-35 ; Jun 13, 2001
Discusses the court-ordered, multibillion-dollar infusion of funds to New Jersey cities for improving their school facilities and whether these additional funds will cause an urban renaissance. Some examples of New Jersey urban school facility needs are highlighted. [Free subscriber registration is required.]
Out in the Cold.
Education Week; v20 n40 , p28-31 ; Jun 13, 2001
Discusses how the Alaska state courts are forcing state leaders to improve the condition of schools in the state's far-flung rural areas. The states response and why it has not done more are explored. Examples of rural school needs are examined. [Free subscriber registration is required.]
Quick, Build Us a School.
Architecture; v90 n6 , p49-52,112 ; Jun 2001
Compares how Los Angeles Unified School District (California) and Las Vegas (Nevada) are meeting the increasing demand for highly functional school facilities in an era of growing student populations, limited funding, and tight schedules.
Building a New Role: States and School Facilities.
Sandham, Jessica L.; Alan, Richard; Johnston, Robert C.
Education Week ; , 41p. ; Jun 2001
This report presents articles that explore the changing role of the states in addressing the nation's need to build and modernize its public schools. The article, "Doling Out Facilities Aid Proves Tricky," explains how some states have learned that securing funds is only one part of helping districts pay for construction. "Some States Help Charter Schools Put a Roof Overhead" discusses charter school facility funding. "Town and Country" explores why urban and rural communities are going to court in search of more help from their states in constructing and upgrading schools. "Out in the Cold" discusses how Alaskan state leaders have been court ordered to improve the condition of schools in the state's far-flung rural villages. "Urban Renewal" examines how, after a lengthy court battle, New Jersey's cities are on the brink of receiving a multibillion-dollar infusion of state aid to improve their school buildings. "Capitol Expenditures" shows how more states are abandoning their traditionally hands-off approach to helping districts build and upgrade schools because of litigation over inequities, increasing enrollments, and evolving educational demands. Finally, "Side-by-Side States are Far Apart in Funding for Facilities" discusses Washington state's leading role in helping fund school construction and renovation while Idaho leaves these issues for the school districts to handle.
Liberty Provisions in State Policies for Financing School Construction
Kowalski, Theordore J.; Schmielau, Robert
School Business Affairs; v67 n4 , p32-37 ; Apr 2001
A study based on policy data from 50 state education departments revealed that all states (except Hawaii) have policies and laws providing moderate or high potential for exercising local control over financing school construction. Liberty has remained a dominant value for school-finance policy despite legal interventions favoring equity. (19 references)
The State's Role in Addresssing the School Facility Funding Crisis
Sielke, Catherine C.
School Business Affairs; v66 n12 , p11-16 ; Dec 2000
Between 1994 and 1998, capital outlay funding bills for school facilities, tax bases, and taxation bills experienced the greatest growth in state legislative activity. This article discusses the reasons for increased funding activity, various state-aid mechanisms to fund capital outlay, and future capital funding directions.
Asphalt, Fleets, Bricks, and Mortar
Green, Tim; Williamson,Margie; Endris, William
School Business Affairs; , p13-15 ; Nov 2000
This explains implementing the new financial reporting model Governmental Accounting Standards Statement No.34, Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments. Unlike the present reporting of capital assets acquired through or associated with government funds, the new reporting model generally dictates that the consumption of those assets be reported through a charge in the governmentwide statement of activities for depreciation expense.
Replacing Arizona's Roofs.
School Planning and Management; v39 n10 , p31-34 ; Oct 2000
Discusses the Arizona statewide mandate to spend $500 million to repair or replace roofs in its public school system. Data from the state's evaluation process are provided, including how the state will fund the project.
Pay As You Go: A Better Way of Funding School Construction
Carey, Kelley D.
American School Board Journal; v187 n6 , p44-46 ; Jun 2000
Pay-as-you-go funding (via local option sales taxes or earmarked property taxes) is superior to floating expensive bond issues to resolve school construction crises. Districts can plan projects more thoughtfully, focus on project priorities, avoid arbitrage problems and high insurance costs, and address socioeconomic considerations more equitably.
American School and University; v72 n8 , p16-20 ; Apr 2000
Explores the issue of school district financial needs and the construction of school facilities for low income areas. Discussions on state and federal aid are highlighted. Arizona's experience in providing educational equity by revamping its old system of paying for school construction is discussed.
Superintendents Apply Local Creativity to National School Facilities Problem.
Holmes, Natalie Carter
AASA Online; Mar 21, 2000
As school district leaders find themselves in communities where only a quarter, or fewer, of residents have children in public schools, the response to bond issue proposals is often less than enthusiastic. But superintendents are finding other creative ways to finance construction and renovation of facilities.TO ORDER: American Association of School Administrators, 801 N. Quincy St., Ste. 700, Arlington, VA 22203-1730; Tel: 703-875-0745
Sources of School Funding.
Schoolhouse of Quality; v4 n1 , p12-15 ; Winter 2000
Examines where school funding comes from, the different levels of funding districts are able to acquire, and provides some examples of unique funding mechanisms. The future of school funding is highlighted, including how former students funded future classrooms in their old high school.
Iowa School-Building Boom May Yield Little in Way of Bonds
Bond Buyer; v33 n30778 , p44 ; Dec 01, 1999
Iowa schools are gearing up to spend several hundred million dollars for school construction projects in the next decade, but investors shouldn't count on them to issue a lot of bonds in the process.
News from Los Angeles: Billions for Schools and Who Is Watching? Proposition BB and Architects.
Lehrer, Michael B.
Architecture California; v20 n1 , p45-48 ; Summer-Fall 1999
Discusses the role of Los Angeles Unified School District's Proposition BB Blue Ribbon Citizens' Oversight Committee, charged with overseeing $4 billion in school construction, and particularly the role of the American Institute of Architects of Los Angeles within the board.
If They Build It....
American School Board Journal; v186 n6 , p30-33 ; Jun 1999
Impact fees are one-time charges assessed to residential developers that help pay for new roads, libraries, school buildings, and other infrastructure needed for growing populations. The fees' highly political nature has pitted school officials against developers, with mixed results. Utah, South Carolina, Florida, and Colorado initiatives are discussed.
Pass or Fail: Schools are Experiencing Mixed Results in Their Attempts to Fund Facilities Repair and Construction.
American School and University; v71 n10 , p20-24,26 ; Jun 1999
Examines the mixed results from several school districts that attempted to fund their school repair and construction projects. Enrollment, building deterioration, and school construction needs and costs are discussed, as are difficulties convincing the community to support capital improvement costs and/or just letting go of the emotional attachment that some communities have for particular schools.
Building Grant, Bond-Issue Work Together.
Schanuel, Scott M.
School Planning and Management; v38 n6 , p45-47 ; Jun 1999
Examines how an Illinois school district used teamwork and planning to acquire state funding for construction and renovation of two high schools. Planning efforts included conducting community-based strategic planning, researching the funding program, working closely with state organizations for acquiring grant funds, educating the community, campaigning for passage of a school bond referendum, and fund raising through business associations.
A History of Progress.
Cox, Susan M.
American School and University; v71 n8 , p52-53 ; Apr 1999
Explains how the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools used budget management and community support in successfully building new facilities and preparing the district for expanding instructional technology programs and providing new ones. An overview of the Nashville Public School district is presented along with data on how the district divides its budget.
New Jersey's Schools on the Mend.
Bohi, Barbara J.
School Leader (New Jersey School Boards Ass'n.); Jan-Feb 1999
Analysis of the need for, and initiatives to finance facility improvements in New Jersey's public schools.
Spoor, Dana L.
American School and University; v71 n4 , p16-18 ; Dec 1998
Examines how the Dallas Independent School District (Texas) has been successful in passing new bond issues for school construction and renovation. The school district's strategic methodology is discussed as are its management tactics in meeting diverse student needs, school safety, and student overcrowding.
Catalyst: Voices of Chicago School Reform; v10 n3 ; Nov 1998
A series of articles discuss funded projects in the Chicago area. The School Reform Board is spending the bulk of its $2 billion in capital improvement dollars on the most basic, urgent projects, an analysis shows. In general, the projects are spread citywide without regard to race, class or political clout.
Georgia Schools Tap New Source For Construction.
Education Week ; v17 n38 , p13-14 ; Jun 03, 1998
In 1996, Georgia voters approved a measure that gave local districts access to a 1-cent sales tax for school construction and renovation, to be charged in addition to an existing state sales tax of 4 cents and other local sales taxes. One of the benefits of the new source of funds--called the Educational Local Option Sales Tax, or ELOST--is that a pay-as-you-go system of building schools can save districts millions of dollars in interest charges. By comparison, because schools receive an annual lump sum from property taxes, they must borrow money by selling bonds until those revenues come in. Schools have more ready access to sales-tax revenues, which come in monthly. [Free subscriber registration is required.]
Agron, Joe, Ed.
American School and University; v70 n10 , p20-25 ; Jun 1998
Discusses how a recent New York State Supreme Court decision ordering the repair of all facilities within the New York City School system could have far-reaching implications for other districts. The school system's history of school building neglect that prompted the Court's decision and the decision's affect are examined as are similar litigation problems in other states.TO ORDER: http://asumag.com
Builder Teams with Municipality to Provide all School Services
ENR: Engineering News-Record; v240 n14 , p14 ; Apr 06, 1998
Pembroke Pines, Florida, is to have the first municipally run open-enrollment charter school, with turnkey educational services being provided by a division of the Haskell Company, a design-build company delivering the school. According to Alex Fekete, mayor of Pembroke Pines, project costs for the Haskell Charter School are $6,800 per student station, whereas the state's average is $13,000 per student station.
Sitting on a Gold Mine
Zanic, Tom; Kirchenstein, Joel
American School Board Journal; v185 n3 , p39-40 ; Mar 1998
Many districts are holding property that could be put to better use. With a creative strategy for planning, analyzing, and implementing a plan for these public properties, local boards and administrators can uncover hidden value in their real estate assets. California's Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District now receives $500,000 a year in revenue from previously unused land.
Fair and Adequate Funding for School Facilities
Sielke, Catherine C.
School Business Affairs; v64 n1 , p24-29 ; Jan 1998
The nation's schools are facing multiple problems regarding facilities and capital outlay needs for new buildings, additions, and renovations to support technology and instructional infrastructures. Options include use of current revenues, sinking funds, full-state funding, equalization grants, and state aid or loan programs. Financing of facility needs should be subject to the same equity measures that have been established to provide educational programs for children.
Michigan School Facilities, Equity Issues, and Voter Response to Bond Issues Following Finance Reform
Sielke, Catherine C.
Journal of Education Finance; v23 n3 , p309-22 ; Winter-Spring 1998
Examines voter response to bond issues immediately following Michigan' s elimination of its property tax school-funding system. Reviews equity measures, discusses court cases addressing school facility equity issues, and compares other states' funding approaches. Michigan's system for financing school facilities remains inequitable, and facility needs are heading for crisis. (28 references)
Covering Construction Costs.
The American School Board Journal; v184 , p20-23 ; Oct 1997
Across the nation, local school districts are scrambling for much-needed funds to fix up old schools and build new ones to accommodate booming enrollments. The problems go beyond the ability of many districts, even of many districts that are relatively wealthy, to solve. However, despite political promises and posturing, it appears for now that local districts can count on little help from federal government or, in most cases, from state governments. Current debates in Colorado, Arizona, and Maine about inequities in school funding, particularly for capital improvements, are discussed.TO ORDER: American School Board Journal, 1680 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; Tel: 703-838-6722
School Finance and Reform in Delaware: A Summary
Nakib, Yasser A.
Educational Considerations; v25 n1 , p14-16 ; Fall 1997
Explains trends in the 1980s and 1990s and the state of Delawares funding process in 1997, including percentages, dollar amounts, and descriptions of the different components of the educational system. Describes recently determined goals and the states strategic reform process, which comprises standard based reform, assessment for accountability, and capacity building. A short analysis of the impact of other minor legislation and changes in federal support is also provided. The proposed reform may not be successful without more funding. (Contains six references.) (BRH)
A Quarter Century of Turmoil: School Finance in California on the 25th Anniversary of "Serrano."
Picus, Lawrence O.
Educational Considerations; v25 n1 , p5-9 ; Fall 1997
Explains problems with complex system of educational finance in California. Addresses issues such as diversity, per pupil expenditure, and equity at district and school level; problems with special education, pupil transportation, supplemental grants, and "mega-item;" and brief history of California's school financing--including Serrano v. Priest ruling, Proposition 13, and Proposition 98--illuminating source of current difficulties. Concludes with general solutions.
Niagara Falls Project May be a Watershed in Privatization
Angelo, William.; Powers, Mary Buckner
ENR: Engineering News-Record; v238 , p9 ; May 12, 1997
Privatization is being used to help fund the building of a single, $60 million structure to replace 2 high schools in Niagara Falls, New York. The plan involves selling the 2 schools and $15 million in property to developers that will then build the new school and lease it to the city for 30 years at no cost to local taxpayers. The school and other facilities will be developed as a design-build, turnkey project with a guaranteed maximum price.
The Future of Children ; v7 n3 ; Winter-Spring 1997
Articles in this publication look at the educational and financial issues facing states today, including the link between school funding and student outcomes; the distribution of funding for schools; the creation of accountability mechanisms, etc. Appendix A covers the issue of school facilities.
Educational Reform in the Sunshine State: High Need, Low Funding, and a Disaffected Electorate.
Herrington, Carolyn D.; Trimble, Susan
Educational Considerations; v25 n1 , p17-20 ; 1997
Claims that voters and elected officials allow only short-term solutions to financial problems and that Florida fails to address need or adequacy. Efforts to find other funding sources, equity, and capital construction are prominent issues. Explains the sources of some problems by describing the state funding formula and discussing the structurally inadequate tax base, the new political and constitutional barriers to tax expansion, and sectoral rivalry for state revenues. Discusses new trends toward educational efficiency and reform. (Contains seven references.)
An Economical, Thorough, and Efficient School System: The West Virginia School Building Authority "Economy of Scale" Numbers
Purdy, Deirdre H.
Journal of Research in Rural Education; v13 n3 , p170-182 ; Winter-Spring 1997
The West Virginia School Building Authority has arbitrarily emphasized economies of scale as a requirement for statewide facilities funding. This requirement has forced consolidation in sparsely populated areas with resultant "diseconomies of scale" related to transportation costs, increased dropout rates, and decreased parental and community involvement. Proposes changes in school funding criteria to reflect statutory goals. Contains 45 references.
Allocation of State Funds for Construction and Renovation of Schools in Georgia
Walker, Mary Beth; Sjoquist, David L.
Journal of Education Finance; v22 n2 , p161-179 ; Fall-Winter 1996
Examines Georgia's model capital outlay program for public schools. Despite the current program's many positive aspects, incentives provided to local school districts can lead to inefficiencies, contradictions, and inequities for districts with older physical plants. The program also contains an incentive to use debt financing, rather than property-tax financing of construction projects. (16 footnotes)
Back from the Brink.
School Planning and Management; v35 n6 , p14-18 ; Jun 1996
Ben Reyes, chief operating officer of the Chicago Public Schools, tells how the district managed, in eight months, a turnaround from no capital improvement funds. Three major investment houses upgraded the district's bond ratings, opening the doors for a 5-year, $806 million capital improvement plan for the city's schools.
School Construction Spending in North Carolina
Liner, Charles D.
School Law Bulletin; v26 n1 , p1-15 ; Winter-Spring 1995
Examines how well, after 12 years and 3 billion dollars, North Carolina's counties and their school systems have succeeded in meeting their previously stated needs for school construction. Focuses on the role of state money in helping counties and on the state's efforts to assist the poorest counties in meeting their needs.
Capital Preservation of School Buildings: Recommendations from a State in Disrepair
Westbrook, Kathleen C.
Planning and Changing; v23 n1 , p.54-60 ; Spring 1992
Illinois currently permits districts to finance repairs and construction related to children's health, life, or safety through a modest "backdoor" referendum rate tied to property values. These repairs are ameliorative but not preventative.This article recommends a strategic capital preservation plan that sets aside funds for use in rehabilitating, modernizing, and preserving existing structures and determining future needs.
Directions in Facility Finance: Alternatives for the Future
Jordan, K. Forbis; Stewart, G. Kent
Educational Considerations; v17 n2 , p53-56 ; Spring 1990
Reviews the options currently available to school districts involved in capital improvement financing and examines new directions in such financing.