This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Safety, Growth, and Equity: School Facilities
by Richard Raya and Victor Rubin Fall 2006
First of a four-part series on infrastructure equity by PolicyLink.
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. 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 5050 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
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 supermajority 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
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
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.
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 sevenyear 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.
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 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.
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
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.
IV. Increase Funding Overall
In recent years, the cost of providing and maintaining adequate school facilities has increased dramatically because of increasing enrollments, aging buildings, class-size reduction, wiring schools for new technology, and a sharp upturn in the price of building materials. The National Education Association and the Journal of Education Finance estimate that it would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars nationally to bring all schools up to good overall condition.24 No state has been able to address school construction needs without a signiﬁcant increase in the investment of public funds, usually via bond ﬁnancing. PRACTICE: Explore state bonds and other ﬁnancing strategies as a means to increase funds. In 1999, Ohio’s governor passed the Rebuild Ohio Plan, calling for adequate facilities for all schools and all schoolchildren by 2011. This “full-ﬁx” strategy was funded by the Tobacco Master Settlement and state bonds. Ohio devised a 12-year plan consisting of $5.9 billion in bonds, $1.8 billion from the General Fund and other appropriations, and $2.5 billion from Tobacco Master Settlement funds. Each year the legislature must propose at least $300 million toward school facilities. The actual amount appropriated is based on the expected revenue and is negotiated between the governor and the legislature. Additionally, the Ofﬁce of School Facility Construction (OSFC) can issue bonds. Participating school districts must pass a local tax levy to make up their share. The OSFC offers districts advice on how to pass a tax levy to provide their share of funding.
V. Efﬁcient Use of Resources: Joint Use and Creative Reuse
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. Public investment in school facilities tends to reward sprawl and plays a role in the deterioration of older, urban communities. The opposite is also true. Numerous studies have found a strong relationship between the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities and the revitalization of distressed areas.25 To this end, advocates are working to discourage sprawl and to create joint-use schools that are centers of walkable communities and economic revitalization efforts. PRACTICE: Maximize public use of school facilities, or schools as centers of community. A new model of “community schools” is springing up across the country. Such models take advantage of the school facility as a community asset; in some cases, schools stay open before and after classes and seven days a week. They operate as a nexus where different agencies and nonproﬁt organizations can provide different types of support and enrichment opportunities to children, youth, and families. In Akron, Ohio, the Public School Educational Facility Master Plan includes Community Learning Centers (CLC), which arose from a local bond referendum.26 The school district agreed to make each public school a CLC, available to the public for community use, to win support for a $328 million bond. Staff of the city’s 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.
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 jointuse 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 antisprawl 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.
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.
Joe Agron, “33rd Annual Ofﬁcial Education Construction Report,” American School and University Magazine, May 2007, available at http://asumag.com/Construction/Construction %20Report%202007.pdf. 2 There are several exceptions to the 50-50 match, such as Hardship Grants and a 60 percent state match for modernization projects, but the bulk of the program is 50-50 match. For more information on regulating funds for school construction, see State Allocation Board, Ofﬁce of Public School Construction, An Overview of State School Facility Programs, 2007, retrieved from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Publications/Other/ SFP_Info.pdf. 3 Chris Guyer et al., “A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance,” Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Ofﬁce, 2001, p. 19. 4 Catherine Hazelton, “Overcrowded Schools, Desperate Measures: Survey Indicates California’s Schools Often Ineligible for Facilities Funds, Use Poor Remedies to Meet Enrollment Demands,” 2005. 5 Ellen Hanak and Mark Baldassare, eds., California 2025: Taking on the Future, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005. 6 Raymond A. Colmenar et al., Ending School Overcrowding in California: Building Quality Schools for All Children, PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 2005; available at http://www.policylink.org/Research/ SchoolOvercrowding/. 7 Ibid. 8 John Morgan, School Capital Funding: Tennessee in a National Context, Comptroller of the Treasury, Ofﬁce of Education Accountability, State of Tennessee, August 2002. 9 See http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/facilitiescases. pdf. 10 See the Access project, retrieved from http://www. schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/facilities.php3. 11 This provision is identical to those in Maryland’s and Ohio’s constitutions. 12 Abbott v. Burke case summary, available at http://www.state. nj.us/njded/abbotts/dec/. 13 DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 193, retrieved from http://www.bricker.com/legalservices/practice/education/ schoolfund/Briefs/majority.asp. 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,”
Building Educational Success Together (BEST); available at http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/modelpolicies/ PlanningSectionMay2005.pdf, p. 15. 24 “Public School Facilities: Providing Environments that Sustain Learning,” ACCESS Newsletter, Winter 2004, Vol. 4, No. 1; available at http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/ Lead%20Article%20-%20Facilities%20_01.14.04_.pdf. 25 Jonathan D. Weiss, “Public Schools and Economic Development: What the Research Shows,” KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 2004, p. 25. 26 “Task 1 Report,” Program Coordination and Master Facilities Planning Best Practices Project, August 2004, p. 10. 27 Constance E. Beaumont, “State Policies and School Facilities: How States Can Support or Undermine Neighborhood Schools and Community Preservation,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003, p. 10. This report for the National Trust for Historic Preservation includes a “menu of model state policies for school facilities” that covers topics ranging from “Schools as Centers of Community” to “A Level Playing Field for New Construction and Renovation Options,” retrieved from http:// www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/schools_state_policies.pdf. 28 “Task 1 Report, op. cit., p. 12. 29 Section 2: Schools as Centers of Communities, BEST Collaborative, May 2005; http://www.21csf. org/csf-home/publications/modelpolicies/ SchoolsCentersCommunitiesSectionMay2005.pdf. 30 Statistical and Fiscal Data, December 16, 1998, through March 22, 2006, Ofﬁce of Public School Construction, retrieved from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Resources/Stats_Fiscal_ Data.pdf. 31 Beaumont, op. cit., p. 10. 32 Ellen Shoshkes, “Creating Communities of Learning: Schools and Smart Growth,” April 2004, p. 3. 33 Beaumont, op. cit. 34 “Education and Smart Growth: Reversing School Sprawl for Better Schools and Communities,” Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, 2002, p. 4. 35 Daniel DeLuc, “Prince George’s, Montgomery Schools Get $91 Million,” Washington Post, May 8, 2001, p. B3. 36 Fothergill interview, June 2006. 37 Beaumont, op. cit., p. 18.
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.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.