California is midway through one of the grandest public infrastructure projects ever attempted. Over the coming decade school officials will complete an $82 billion effort, building new schools and renovating old facilities, supported by taxpayers and private investors. But are state officials and local planners building schools mindfully to advance educational quality and lift local communities?

After committing one-third of these revenues, students and teachers are feeling robust benefits across the state: fewer pupils are crammed into overcrowded schools; smaller high schools are nurturing stronger relationships between teachers and students; and energy efficient green schools are sprouting, yielding savings for taxpayers.

But state policies governing school construction are contributing to some unintended side effects.

• Until recently, state leaders have inadvertently underwritten suburban sprawl by rewarding suburban districts that quickly secure sites for new schools and then win large construction allocations. The Godinez case helped to shift the balance toward stronger financing in urban centers and close-in suburbs. But the state may miss a ripe opportunity to advance smart growth principles by continuing to favor rapidly growing suburban areas while failing to build from existing assets in urban neighborhoods.
   
• The State Allocation Board, overseeing the distribution of facilities revenues, does not publish a report analyzing the types of districts and communities that benefit most from its distribution of billions of dollars in public and private dollars. It remains difficult to track which California communities benefit from this huge and ongoing public investment.
   
• Little is known about how facility improvements or new forms of schooling may boost teacher motivation, effective instruction, or achievement. Education interest groups – including forceful advocates of charter schools, preschools, smaller class sizes – have succeeded in winning setasides in recent facility bond initiatives. They have shown less enthusiasm for independent studies of the actual effects of their reforms.
   
• State policy makers, education leaders, and city planners should come together to: (1) clarify how facility investments can help to attract and retain families in cities and close-in suburbs; (2) remove incentives for unrestrained sprawl; and (3) determine which facility improvements are raising teacher effectiveness and student achievement, as well as enriching local communities.

California can target its $82 billion investment more mindfully to build and renovate schools in ways that raise educational quality and the sustainability of regional economies. Or, the state can squander this historic opportunity, stifling inventive forms of schooling and reinforcing the state’s centrifugal, unsustainable sprawl. That would be one of California’s greatest missed opportunities.

Schools are centers of social activity in many communities. They can attract new middle-class families, or convince them to leave for suburban outreaches. This report contributes to a new conversation around how careful school construction can enrich metropolitan areas and sustainable forms of regional development.

Bruce Fuller, Jeffrey M. Vincent, Deborah McKoy, and Ariel H. Bierbaum
January 2009  |  33 pages

Download PDF (716 KB)