1 PolicyLink
Safety, Growth, and Equity:
Introduction
Across the country, aging infrastructure and a growing
population have led to a massive need for modernizing
old schools and constructing new ones. School
construction costs reached an all-time high in 2004:
nationally, over $29 billion was spent on K-12 school
construction, and almost $51.4 billion is projected to
be spent during 2007-2009.1
While all states provide money for school districts’
operating expenses, historically school buildings
have been considered local assets that were most
appropriately paid for by local taxpayers. As a result,
districts with low property values or small proportions
of voters with school-aged children faced the
significant challenge of raising revenues to improve
the quality and quantity of school buildings. Over time
this led to great inequity among schools in different
communities. With better understanding of the effect
of facilities on student learning and with concerns
about adequacy and equity in providing schools, states
have begun to play a larger role in paying for school
capital expenditures.
In most cases, this larger role in funding school
construction has been sparked by lawsuits. Plaintiffs
have argued that disparity in the quality of school
facilities from district to district violates state
constitutional requirements. Across the country, courts
have agreed, pushing states to adopt new policies that
provide for more equitable investment in public school
facilities.
School Facilities
by Richard Raya and Victor Rubin
Fall 2006
First of a four-part series on infrastructure equity by PolicyLink.
Today, states’ share of school construction costs still
varies significantly from place to place. Some states
continue to provide little or no money for school
facilities construction, while others, such as Arizona
and Ohio, have assumed more responsibility for school
construction planning and funding, contributing up to
100 percent of construction costs.
According to California law, the state is required to
split the cost of new school construction projects 50-
50 with local school districts. In reality, the state rarely
pays its full half of the cost.2 The Legislative Analyst’s
Office estimates that, on average, the state pays about
40 percent of that cost.3 Even if the state contributed
its full half, significant disparity would continue to
exist in the amount of state funds that reach different
districts. Several districts continue to have difficulty
raising their local match; districts with higher property
values are able to raise more funds via bond financing
and, therefore, receive higher matching state funds
than those that are property-poor. Further, the
eligibility requirements that districts must meet in
order to access state funds systematically disadvantage
urban and rural school districts; state funds for new
school construction flow, instead, to new suburban
sprawl.
The need for investment in increasing the quantity and
quality of schools is particularly acute in California. Its
public schools are among the most crowded in the
nation. Three factors have primarily contributed to this
overcrowding: Proposition 13, demographic changes,
and class-size reduction. In 1978, voters approved
Proposition 13, which lowered property taxes, a main
 2 PolicyLink
source of school funding. The measure also required
a two-thirds’ vote—rather than a simple-majority
vote—for facilities bonds to be approved. This super-
majority requirement significantly slowed new school
construction while the state’s student population
grew rapidly. Increases in immigration compounded a
surge in birthrates throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
The state’s student population, under 4 million in
1980, grew to nearly 6 million by 2000. The need for
new classrooms was further compounded by policies
adopted in the late 1990s to reduce classroom sizes.
Starting in 1996, districts were required to reduce class
sizes or risk losing state funding.4
California is making positive strides toward increasing
public investment in school facilities. The passage of
Proposition 39 in 2000 reduced the two-thirds’ vote
requirement for a local school construction bond to
a 55 percent vote requirement. As of 2005, school
districts passed more than 250 local bond measures
for more than $20 billion. Almost half of these would
not have passed if the super-majority vote was still
required.5 In 2002 and 2004, voters approved two
large statewide bond measures, Propositions 47 and
55, which generated $21.4 billion in bond funds for
K–12 school construction.
The state also began to address equity issues in public
investment in schools. By passing Assembly Bill 16 (AB
16), which created the Critically Overcrowded Schools
(COS) program, the legislature allowed districts with a
high ratio of students per acre to reserve state funds
through a preliminary apportionment system. The
bill acknowledged that inner city school districts face
a scarcity of available land for the construction of
new schools, and therefore take longer to complete
an application, losing out in a first come, first serve
funding system with finite resources. By giving these
districts the ability to reserve funds for up to four years
before submitting a complete application, the bill gave
them more time to find and develop sites and qualify
for state funding. This step forward eliminated one
The need for investment in increasing the quantity and
quality of schools is particularly acute in California. Its public
schools are among the most crowded in the nation.
significant barrier that previously made it difficult for
many overcrowded urban districts and for those that
faced fiscal, administrative, and other constraints to
access state funds for school construction. However,
not enough state funds were set aside to eliminate
overcrowding, and certain program eligibility rules
continued to make it difficult for some of these
districts to participate in the program.6
In 2004, the state also entered into a landmark
settlement in the case of Williams v. State of
California, a class-action lawsuit that challenged
the state to provide all California students with
basic educational necessities, including adequate
school facilities. The state allocated an additional
$800 million toward emergency repairs for school
facilities. In 2005, following the Williams settlement,
PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund (MALDEF) released a report that
included recommendations for addressing the true
level of overcrowding in the state and resolving state
construction program eligibility barriers. PolicyLink
and MALDEF worked with legislators, advocates, and
grassroots organizations such as the Advancement
Project, Californians for Justice, and the Educational
Justice Collaborative to publicize the overcrowding
crisis and proposed solutions. In 2006, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger and several legislators
agreed that a new school bond was needed to meet
the demands of a growing population as well as an
aging and overcrowded inventory of school facilities.
Legislative staff cited the PolicyLink and MALDEF
report in committee hearings on the bond; PolicyLink
and MALDEF staff were also invited to provide expert
testimony at these hearings. The governor and the
legislature signed off on a $7.3 billion, K–12 school
facilities bond proposal, with $1 billion set aside
specifically for overcrowded schools. Language was
included in this proposal that would attempt to
resolve the program eligibility barriers described in the
PolicyLink/MALDEF report.7
 3 PolicyLink
Promising Practices
I. Community Participation
in Policy and Programming:
Local Activism, Coalitions, and
Litigation
States that lead the nation in providing equitable
investment in school facilities have done so in response
to litigation. Whether courts issued rulings or states
settled with plaintiffs, lawsuits have raised awareness
and spurred action on behalf of children. Seventeen
states have revised school facilities funding as a result
of education finance litigation, and 35 states have
resolved or are currently involved in litigation related
to school facilities adequacy.8 Under court order, many
of these states increased their support for school
construction and renovation.9
PRACTICE: Hold states accountable to their
constitutional obligation to provide equitable
educational opportunities for all students.
Litigation on behalf of low-income communities and
communities of color has been an important tool in
pushing states to take responsibility for educational
adequacy and to redress inequities in the states’
facilities funding mechanisms.
Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled in 1994 in Roosevelt
Elementary School District No. 66 et al. v. Bishop
that the state’s school capital finance system was
unconstitutional because it failed to conform to the
constitution’s “general and uniform” clause. The court
interpreted the state’s constitution to require funding
to provide school facilities that would enable students
to meet the state’s student competency standards.10
New Jersey’s constitution requires the state to provide
a “thorough and efficient” system of public school
education.11 In the Abbott v. Burke decision in May
1997, the New Jersey Supreme Court pointed out that
“deteriorating physical facilities relate to the State’s
educational obligation, and (the court) continually
has noted that adequate physical facilities are an
essential component of that constitutional mandate.”
In that same decision, the court specifically addressed
the disparity between poor and wealthier school
districts, observing that the state’s poorest districts
had “dilapidated, unsafe, and overcrowded facilities”
and that the state “cannot expect disadvantaged
children to learn when they are relegated to buildings
that are unsafe and often incapable of housing the
very programs needed to educate them.” The court
decided that (1) the state was constitutionally obliged
to provide facilities for public school children that
ensured them a “thorough and efficient” education
and (2) the quality of the facilities could not depend
on the districts’ willingness or ability to raise taxes
or incur debt. The court required that the legislature
equalize per-pupil expenditures across poor urban and
wealthy suburban districts.12
The Ohio constitution also requires the state to
provide a “thorough and efficient” public school
education to the students in the state. The Ohio
Supreme Court held that “a thorough system could
not mean one in which part or any number of the
school districts of the state was starved for funds. An
efficient system could not mean one in which part or
any number of the school districts in the state lacked
teachers, buildings, or equipment.” The 1997 case,
DeRolph v. State, declared Ohio’s entire K–12 system
was unconstitutional; students were not receiving a
“thorough and efficient” education because of the
deficient physical state of the schools that resulted
from over-reliance on local property taxes and on the
lack of sufficient funding in the General Assembly’s
biannual budget for constructing and maintaining
public school buildings.13
PRACTICE: Engage stakeholders to help build and
maintain momentum for change.
Arizona redesigned its education capital expenditure
finance system from one that relied heavily on local
property taxes to one that placed primary responsibility
on the state. This change took place over a seven-
year period. While it began with a lawsuit in 1991, it
was reinvigorated in 1995 by a public engagement
process initiated by the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction and formalized by the Students FIRST
statute that was enacted in 1998.
Inaction on the part of legislators and the governor
following the lawsuit had prompted the State
Superintendent to convene a three-day Education
Finance summit in 1995. The summit was attended
by a diverse array of stakeholders, from legislators
to parents. Significant media coverage of this event
helped to build and maintain momentum around
school facilities finance reform.
 4 PolicyLink
By engaging in systematic and ongoing data collection, states
understand the size and scope of their facilities needs and can
allocate resources accordingly.
In the absence of legislation to change the school
finance system, plaintiffs from the Roosevelt suit
went back to court in 1996. Again, the Arizona
Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, ruling
that to comply with the constitution the state must:
establish standards for adequate school facilities;
provide funding sufficient to ensure that districts meet
these standards; and ensure no substantial disparities
in funding. The judge set a deadline of June 30,
1998, for the state to adopt a new system of school
finance. Over the next two years, the court remained
heavily involved in reviewing new laws enacted by
the legislature and governor in light of constitutional
requirements, resulting in a new, more equitable
capital funding system for Arizona schools.14
II. Standards, Measurement, and
Assessment
By engaging in systematic and ongoing data
collection, states understand the size and scope
of their facilities needs and can allocate resources
accordingly. Without such an assessment, states can
at best only react to school districts’ requests for funds
rather than proactively provide them where they are
needed most.
PRACTICE: Establish facilities standards and conduct
comprehensive assessments to ensure standards
are met.
All students benefit when states create a
comprehensive set of minimum standards for facilities
conditions and conduct ongoing statewide facilities
inventory assessments based on these standards. Such
practices ensure that policymakers, parents, and other
stakeholders become aware of deficiencies in facilities’
condition and capacity so that funds can be directed
toward the most needy schools and communities.
In Arizona, Students FIRST legislation created the
Arizona School Facilities Board (SFB), which developed
statewide minimum adequacy standards for all school
facilities.15 The SFB standards addressed not only the
physical environment of the facilities, but also their
ability to support an effective learning environment.16
These requirements were in addition to standard
health, safety, and energy-saving building codes. To
evaluate continually the state’s school capital needs,
the SFB maintains a facilities database that contains
information provided by each school district. Based
on these data, the SFB allocates funding for building
renewal and the construction of new facilities.17
In Maryland, the “Task Force to Study Public School
Facilities” developed state standards. The task force
was comprised of facilities planners and members from
associations of counties, boards of education, and
educators. Using these standards as a guide, a Facility
Assessment Survey conducted in 2003 identified
deficiencies in school facilities in every jurisdiction of
the state.18
School facility guidelines developed by expert
educational planners informed the development of
Ohio’s Office of School Facility Construction (OSFC)
“Design Manual.” The manual contains a “square
footage per child” standard and places a priority
on instructional space. As a result of the DeRolph
litigation,19 the OSFC was required by law to conduct
facilities assessments by district, beginning with the
neediest districts, using the guidelines set forth in the
manual.
 5 PolicyLink
III. Targeting Resources to
High-Need Areas
States using model approaches to provide equitable
public investment in school facilities have increased
overall funding, prioritized funding based on assessed
need, and established specific time frames in which
needs will be met.
PRACTICE: Direct funds toward the areas with the
highest need to resolve immediate health and
safety issues.
With the passage of the Educational Facilities
Construction and Financing Act (1998), $6 billion
was approved to bring all 403 of the schools in New
Jersey’s special needs, or Abbott, districts up to
educational adequacy.20 The Act required all school
districts in the state to submit a Long-Range Facilities
Plan incorporating enrollment projections, an inventory
of existing school facilities needs in the district, and
a plan to satisfy those needs for a five-year period.
Highest priority was given to the safety and security of
school facilities when evaluating plan submissions.
Also in 1998, Arizona revamped its school facilities
finance system, shifting primary responsibility away
from local school districts, with their heavy reliance
on local property taxes, to the state. The state then
assumed responsibility for paying for facilities, with
no local match required. The centerpiece of the new
finance system, the Deficiencies Corrections Fund, was
designed to be temporary, providing funds that would
bring facilities up to minimum standards within three
years.21 By July 2006, about $1.3 billion was spent on
nearly 6,000 projects, and only a handful of projects
remained in three districts.22
PRACTICE: Create different, complementary
programs to help direct funds proactively toward
those needy districts that require the most state
assistance.
In Ohio, school districts receive different amounts
of state funding based on their position on a ranked
“Equity List” that takes into account a district’s relative
wealth and number of pupils. This list is maintained
by the Ohio Department of Education. District facilities
are funded at a level from 5 percent to 99 percent. The
state has established a series of programs to address
facilities deficiencies and to target school construction
dollars to the most needy districts. It has done this
through multiple programs, including the Classroom
Facilities Assistance Program (CFAP), the Exceptional
Needs Program, and the Accelerated Urban Initiative.
All districts in the state are eligible for funds through
the CFAP, the largest program, but priority is given to
the lowest-wealth districts, and the state pays a larger
share of the cost of these districts’ school facilities
projects.
The Exceptional Needs Program is designed to address
the health and safety needs of districts that are of
below-average wealth. Applications for this program
are rank ordered, based on the severity of the specific
facility problem to be addressed.
The Accelerated Urban Initiative was established at the
same time as the OSFC to initiate educational facilities
assessment and upgrades for the largest school
districts. Because of the size and complexity of their
facilities problems, this program prioritized districts
that serve a significant proportion of the students in
Ohio’s public education system.
PRACTICE: Offer a higher level of state-matching
funds for higher-need districts.
New Jersey pays 100 percent of school construction
and renovation costs in high-need (Abbott) districts;
the state pays 40 percent of the cost of construction in
other districts.
As noted earlier, in Ohio, districts receive state funding
that ranges from 5 percent to 99 percent, based on
their rank on the state’s Equity List.
Connecticut provides a matching grant that covers 20
percent to 80 percent of project costs, based on the
property tax base. 23
PRACTICE: Do not unduly sacrifice or disadvantage
wealthy districts; these areas may need new
schools, too.
While Ohio specifically targets funds to low-wealth
and needy school districts, it does not do so at the
expense of wealthy districts. Its Expedited Local
Partnership Program allows wealthier school districts
to move forward with new construction projects
before state funding becomes available to them. These
districts can receive state funding for payments already
made on the construction projects once they become
eligible for the general state funds.
 6 PolicyLink

IV. Increase Funding Overall V. Efficient Use of Resources:

In recent years, the cost of providing and maintaining
Joint Use and Creative Reuse
adequate school facilities has increased dramatically
Financing for new schools is often more accessible
because of increasing enrollments, aging buildings,
to new suburban and exurban developments with
class-size reduction, wiring schools for new
growing student enrollments than it is to urban areas
technology, and a sharp upturn in the price of building
with overcrowded and dilapidated older schools. Public
materials. The National Education Association and the
investment in school facilities tends to reward sprawl
Journal of Education Finance estimate that it would
and plays a role in the deterioration of older, urban
cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars nationally
communities.
to bring all schools up to good overall condition.24 No
state has been able to address school construction
The opposite is also true. Numerous studies have
needs without a significant increase in the investment
found a strong relationship between the construction
of public funds, usually via bond financing.
and rehabilitation of school facilities and the
revitalization of distressed areas.25 To this end,
PRACTICE: Explore state bonds and other financing
advocates are working to discourage sprawl and to
strategies as a means to increase funds.
create joint-use schools that are centers of walkable
communities and economic revitalization efforts.
In 1999, Ohio’s governor passed the Rebuild Ohio
Plan, calling for adequate facilities for all schools and
PRACTICE: Maximize public use of school facilities,
all schoolchildren by 2011. This “full-fix” strategy was
or schools as centers of community.
funded by the Tobacco Master Settlement and state
bonds.
A new model of “community schools” is springing
up across the country. Such models take advantage
Ohio devised a 12-year plan consisting of $5.9 billion
of the school facility as a community asset; in some
in bonds, $1.8 billion from the General Fund and
cases, schools stay open before and after classes and
other appropriations, and $2.5 billion from Tobacco
seven days a week. They operate as a nexus where
Master Settlement funds. Each year the legislature
different agencies and nonprofit organizations can
must propose at least $300 million toward school
provide different types of support and enrichment
facilities. The actual amount appropriated is based on
opportunities to children, youth, and families. In
the expected revenue and is negotiated between the
Akron, Ohio, the Public School Educational Facility
governor and the legislature. Additionally, the Office
Master Plan includes Community Learning Centers
of School Facility Construction (OSFC) can issue bonds.
(CLC), which arose from a local bond referendum.26
Participating school districts must pass a local tax
The school district agreed to make each public school
levy to make up their share. The OSFC offers districts
a CLC, available to the public for community use, to
advice on how to pass a tax levy to provide their share
win support for a $328 million bond. Staff of the city’s
of funding.
park and recreation department have an office in every
CLC.

Financing for new schools is often more accessible to new suburban

and exurban developments with growing student enrollments than it
is to urban areas with overcrowded and dilapidated older schools.
 7 PolicyLink
Massachusetts gives priority to funding applications
for “innovative community uses of school facilities.”27
Lincoln, Nebraska, has three community recreation
centers that are part of school buildings. These centers
maximize public investments in facilities because they
are available to multiple groups of people. Computer
labs are open to students as well as seniors; schools
are designed so that gymnasiums, cafeterias, and
meeting rooms can be used when the rest of the
building is closed.28
Building Educational Success Together (BEST) defines
the concept of schools as centers of community as
follows: “(a) extensive and innovative community
use of the public school facility; (b) schools where
community partnerships support high-quality
education and contribute to life-long learning; (c)
co-location with local government agencies and/or
community organizations resulting in creative program
service delivery and more efficient utilization of public
land and buildings; and (d) opportunities for new and/
or additional sources of funds for financing building
improvements and program delivery.”29
California has allocated some resources toward joint-
use projects. Propositions 47 and 55 set aside a total
of $100 million for facilities that have a dual purpose
(at minimum), such as those used by both K–12 school
districts and the local library district. As of March
2006, the state had apportioned $68.5 million for
75 projects.30 North Carolina, Iowa, and Arizona
have also enacted legislation allowing school districts
and other public agencies to enter into joint-use
agreements.
PRACTICE: Integrate planning for school facilities
into general land-use planning.
Encouraging school districts to coordinate their school
facility plans with statewide land-use plans or those
developed by local governments is one approach to
combat sprawl and encourage infill development. At
least three states require such collaborative planning:
New Jersey, Maine, and Rhode Island.31
After the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in
Abbott v. Burke, the Office of State Planning seized
the opportunity to align school facilities planning with
the goals of New Jersey’s State Development and
Redevelopment Plan, “a blueprint for state investment
based on the principles of Smart Growth.”32 One of
the plan’s infrastructure policies specifically states:
“Make the most effective use of existing school
facilities; plan, design, and construct multi-use school
facilities integrating public and private uses to serve
as centers of community and that take advantage
of learning opportunities available throughout the
community. Size, design, and locate new school
facilities to serve as focal points for existing and new
growth in ways that support compact development
and redevelopment. Integrate school facilities planning
with neighborhood and community-wide planning and
development.”
Other states explicitly encourage joint-use planning:
Maine requires that the State Board of Education
provide written justification when it funds new
schools that are outside areas designated by the
local government for growth. Florida requires school
boards and local governments to coordinate and
cooperate in providing school facilities. Vermont
requires local school districts to comply with anti-
sprawl land-use policies, and Maryland requires that
school construction projects are consistent with local
planning policies.33
PRACTICE: Allow flexibility in site size to allow for
infill development.
All states regulate to some extent the location, design,
and construction of new schools. Many states include
the minimum site-size requirements established by the
Council of Educational Facilities Planners International
(CEFPI). Few available tracts of land in urban areas
meet these requirements; as a result, new schools get
pushed to the fringes of communities.
Some states are starting to revise their site-size
requirements so that it is possible to do infill
development without razing neighborhoods. Maine
is one state that has reversed this trend, using the
CEFPI guideline as a maximum rather than a minimum.
Florida has set site standards that are lower than
those set by the CEFPI.34
PRACTICE: Use existing infrastructure.
Most states’ policies are either neutral about the use
of existing infrastructure versus new construction
or they encourage new construction. If the cost of
renovating a school exceeds a certain percentage (66.7
percent, 60 percent, and 50 percent are the most
common amounts) of the cost of facility replacement,
many states require that school districts build anew
or forfeit state funding. Policies that encourage the
use of existing infrastructure over new construction
are a powerful tool for combating sprawl, yet only
two states specifically encourage this—Maryland and
Vermont.
Maryland’s State Public School Construction program
states that school projects should be located in
developed areas and served by existing infrastructure.
 8 PolicyLink

In recent years, 80 percent of state construction funds have

gone into rebuilding, compared to 25 percent
in the mid-1990s.

In recent years, 80 percent of state construction funds

have gone into rebuilding, compared to 25 percent
in the mid-1990s.35 Under a program entitled Priority
Places, all school construction decisions are made by
the interagency committee on school construction.
Committee members are the State Superintendent of
Schools, the Secretary of Planning, the Secretary of
General Services, an appointee by the Senate, and an
appointee by the House. The Secretary of Planning
and her staff confirm that any request for new school
construction and/or for major renovation is located
within existing, state-designated “smart growth” areas
and is supported by existing infrastructure such as
water and roads.36

In Vermont, “school districts [are] encouraged to

use the existing infrastructure to meet the needs
of Vermont’s students, and therefore funding for
renovations, including major repairs, and additions
to existing school buildings shall be given preference
over new school development.”37 Massachusetts has
enacted regulations that allow new construction only
when analysis has shown that renovating an existing
school building or acquiring and adapting an existing
building within the community is not cost-effective.
 9 PolicyLink

Notes

1
Joe Agron, “33rd Annual Official Education Construction Building Educational Success Together (BEST); available at
Report,” American School and University Magazine, May http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/modelpolicies/
2007, available at http://asumag.com/Construction/Construction PlanningSectionMay2005.pdf, p. 15.
24
%20Report%202007.pdf. “Public School Facilities: Providing Environments that Sustain
2
There are several exceptions to the 50-50 match, such as Learning,” ACCESS Newsletter, Winter 2004, Vol. 4, No. 1;
Hardship Grants and a 60 percent state match for modernization available at http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/
projects, but the bulk of the program is 50-50 match. For more Lead%20Article%20-%20Facilities%20_01.14.04_.pdf.
25
information on regulating funds for school construction, see Jonathan D. Weiss, “Public Schools and Economic
State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, An Development: What the Research Shows,” KnowledgeWorks
Overview of State School Facility Programs, 2007, retrieved from Foundation, 2004, p. 25.
26
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Publications/Other/ “Task 1 Report,” Program Coordination and Master Facilities
SFP_Info.pdf. Planning Best Practices Project, August 2004, p. 10.
3 27
Chris Guyer et al., “A New Blueprint for California School Constance E. Beaumont, “State Policies and School Facilities:
Facility Finance,” Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2001, How States Can Support or Undermine Neighborhood Schools
p. 19. and Community Preservation,” National Trust for Historic
4
Catherine Hazelton, “Overcrowded Schools, Desperate Preservation, 2003, p. 10. This report for the National Trust for
Measures: Survey Indicates California’s Schools Often Ineligible Historic Preservation includes a “menu of model state policies
for Facilities Funds, Use Poor Remedies to Meet Enrollment for school facilities” that covers topics ranging from “Schools
Demands,” 2005. as Centers of Community” to “A Level Playing Field for New
5
Ellen Hanak and Mark Baldassare, eds., California 2025: Taking Construction and Renovation Options,” retrieved from http://
on the Future, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005. www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/schools_state_policies.pdf.
6 28
Raymond A. Colmenar et al., Ending School Overcrowding in “Task 1 Report, op. cit., p. 12.
29
California: Building Quality Schools for All Children, PolicyLink Section 2: Schools as Centers of Communities,
and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational BEST Collaborative, May 2005; http://www.21csf.
Fund, 2005; available at http://www.policylink.org/Research/ org/csf-home/publications/modelpolicies/
SchoolOvercrowding/. SchoolsCentersCommunitiesSectionMay2005.pdf.
7 30
Ibid. Statistical and Fiscal Data, December 16, 1998, through March
8
John Morgan, School Capital Funding: Tennessee in a National 22, 2006, Office of Public School Construction, retrieved from
Context, Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Education http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Resources/Stats_Fiscal_
Accountability, State of Tennessee, August 2002. Data.pdf.
9 31
See http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/facilitiescases. Beaumont, op. cit., p. 10.
32
pdf. Ellen Shoshkes, “Creating Communities of Learning: Schools
10
See the Access project, retrieved from http://www. and Smart Growth,” April 2004, p. 3.
33
schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/facilities.php3. Beaumont, op. cit.
11 34
This provision is identical to those in Maryland’s and Ohio’s “Education and Smart Growth: Reversing School Sprawl for
constitutions. Better Schools and Communities,” Funders’ Network for Smart
12
Abbott v. Burke case summary, available at http://www.state. Growth and Livable Communities, 2002, p. 4.
35
nj.us/njded/abbotts/dec/. Daniel DeLuc, “Prince George’s, Montgomery Schools Get $91
13
DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 193, retrieved from Million,” Washington Post, May 8, 2001, p. B3.
36
http://www.bricker.com/legalservices/practice/education/ Fothergill interview, June 2006.
37
schoolfund/Briefs/majority.asp. Beaumont, op. cit., p. 18.
14
Molly Hunter, “Building on Judicial Intervention: The Redesign
of School Facilities Funding in Arizona,” Campaign for Fiscal
Equity, Inc., September 2003.
15
Ibid.
16
Susan Fothergill, “Funding for Educational Facilities,” ACLU of
Maryland, March 2003.
17
School Facilities Board Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY2005–
FY2010, October 2004; http://www.azsfb.gov/sfb/sfbaays/lst_
formsDocs.asp?setId=13.
18
The resulting inventory of all 24 jurisdictions is available on the
web at http://www.mlis.state.md.us/other/education/public_
school_facilities_2003/SchoolSurvey.pdf.
19
DeRolph, op. cit.
20
New Jersey Department of Education website, http://www.
state.nj.us/njded/facilities/background/act_summ.shtml, and
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/news/2002/1028com.htm.
21
Fothergill, op. cit.
22
Interview with Kristen Landry, Public Information Officer,
Arizona School Facilities Board, July 2006.
23
“Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities,”
 10 PolicyLink

PolicyLink is a national research and action institute

advancing economic and social equity.

Headquarters:
1438 Webster Street
Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
t 510 663-2333
f 510 663-9684

Communications:
55 West 39th Street
11th Floor
New York, New York 10018
t 212 629-8570
f 212 730-2911

All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2006.

Design: Leslie Yang

COVER PHOTOS COURTESY OF (clockwise from top left): Rachel Poulain, ©iStockphoto.com (Tony Trembley), ©iStockphoto.com
(iMage), ©iStockphoto.com (Mike Webber Photography).

PHOTOS COURTESY OF: p. 2: ©iStockphoto.com (DrGrounds); p. 4: David Schott; p. 6: Rachel Poulain ; p. 8: Rachel Poulain.