-
Chapter 4. Getting out of the Facilities Business
- Brookings Institution Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
26 michael dearmond 26 FOUR Getting out of the Facilities Business michael dearmond in march 2002, superintendent John Martin from Grandview, Missouri, found his class at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government interrupted by an emergency phone call from his district. The unstable gable wall of a fifty-year-old school was moving more rapidly than anyone had anticipated, and his worried administrators wanted to know whether or not they should close the school for their students’ protection. A similar dilemma had faced Washington, D.C. Superintendent Franklin Smith several years earlier, and it had cost him his job. Faced with a court decision requiring him to certify that his schools met fire codes, Smith could not open several schools on time for two years in a row. He was eventually fired.1 Smith’s successor, former army general Julius Becton, vowed to turn things around. But after less than a year on the job, Becton found himself voting to close eighteen schools for code violations. After seventeen months as superintendent, he quit.2 Becton, Smith, and Martin are not alone. Providing suitable buildings is a huge challenge for superintendents and school districts across the country . Recent surveys show that one-quarter of the nation’s districts have at least one entire building in “less than adequate condition” and that half of all schools have at least one “inadequate building feature” (for example , failing roofs, floors, foundations, or electrical systems).3 One in four American public schools operates above capacity, and a full onethird use portable classrooms to accommodate the overflow. Los Angeles’s schools are bursting at the seams; Detroit’s remain run-down despite a $1.5 billion bond measure. The stories are legion. getting out of the facilities business 27 Yet overcrowding and disrepair are not the complete story. New and innovative schools have trouble just getting access to the buildings they need. High costs, inadequate capital funding, and political opposition to using district-owned space can make it hard for charter schools to find the buildings they need. Small schools fight an uphill battle in a world where districts continue to build high schools to hold 1,600 students in classrooms with thirty desks each. So beyond the obvious damage done by overcrowded classrooms and broken windows, problems with facilities can frustrate reform. In either case, the effect is similar: a district’s current stock of buildings limits how teachers can teach and how children can learn. These problems are not easy to address. Superintendents and school boards face real challenges when it comes to providing quality buildings for both existing and new types of schools—especially when they see new ones as a key part of long-lasting reform. At the same time, we should recognize that school districts do not have to be the sole actors working to meet these challenges. This chapter outlines an idea for a new institution for governing school facilities called a Public School Real Estate Trust. The idea’s bottom line is to uncouple the property management function from school district central offices. The purpose is to improve the management of district assets and ensure that facilities do not constrain the educational opportunities a district can offer its children. While a Trust could open up alternative methods of financing school buildings, it is important to recognize that this is not a solution to the difficult problem of facilities funding; and although a Trust could, and indeed should, support school reform, it is not a stand-alone strategy. Its role and effect would depend on a district’s broader strategy for reform. Rationale for the Trust Historically, local school districts have been entirely responsible for funding and managing school buildings. Although districts generally still own and manage their buildings, today most states (about three-fifths) use a combination of state and local funding for school buildings.4 Whatever the details of that funding combination—it can range from full state funding to state loans and flat grants—school districts tend to respond narrowly to questions about facilities supply: districts ask voters if the district can borrow money to construct schools that the district will own and manage. [3.227.239.160] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 20:26 GMT) 28 michael dearmond This approach does not necessarily cause problems, but when it is the only option, its limits are clear. In some districts, getting voter approval to borrow money can be difficult, if not impossible, often requiring a...