A Joint Working Paper From - Our Work Cities And Schools

Figure 1: U.S. Census of Governments Reported Public School Capital Outlay (2005 dollars)Total Capital Outlay 504 Billion (1995-2004)Other ornonspecifiedequipment 73,205,643,390Instructionalequipment 36,217,514,63615%7%6%Land and existingstructures 31,995,440,63572%Construction 363,157,222,258Source: U.S. Census of GovernmentsThe U.S. Census of Governments data is most useful to understand total school districtcapital spending since it is the only national public record of school construction andrelated expenditures. However, we use McGraw-Hill Construction data which arecollected at the project level, to get greater detail about the location and type of schoolconstruction. Daily, hundreds of McGraw-Hill reporters review construction contractawarded by school districts all across the country. These data capture the value of hardconstruction costs of specific projects at the time a bid is awarded to a contractor alongwith other information relevant to prospective subcontract bidders such as the type ofwork, its location, and who has won the bid award.2In the research for Growth and Disparity, the 21st Century School Fund cleaned andorganized the McGraw-Hill data so it could be used to analyze school constructionspending at the school district and zip code levels. We utilize this modified McGraw-Hilldata set, which contained approximately 146,000 PK-12 public school projects totaling 304 billion of school construction spending (See Appendix A for a description of thisdata and method for analysis). Figure 2 shows what proportion of the total capital outlay2McGraw Hill Construction, a segment of McGraw Hill Companies collects detailed project-level data onevery building project valued at more than 100,000 undertaken by the nation’s school districts. Theseproprietary McGraw Hill data are collected in real time for the purpose of informing construction industrymanufacturers, contractors, and subcontractors of projects that will be under construction, so they canmarket their goods or services to the project owner and contractor. These “construction start” data reflectthe contract value of each project and represent the construction “hard costs”: the basic labor and materialexpenses of the project. The additional “soft costs” – such as site acquisition, architectural, engineering,project management and other fees – are not collected by McGraw-Hill. Hard costs typically account forabout 70 percent of a project’s total cost.Vincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities5

of school districts is encompassed by the McGraw-Hill school hard construction bid startdata.Figure 2: Comparison of Total Capital Outlay and Hard Construction Bid StartU.S. Census of GovernmentCapital Outlay 1995-2004Equipment 109,423,158,02622%72%Construction 363,157,222,258McGraw -HillConstruction 304 billion6%Land and existingstructures 31,995,440,635Difference 60 billionSource: U.S. Census of GovernmentsThe 304 billion is a subset of the 363 billion dollars of capital construction outlayreported by the U.S. Census of Governments. We analyze this McGraw-Hill constructiondata by type, location, and against geographic measures of income, race, and place typeto understand the scope and distribution of school construction spending. Becauseconstruction costs can rise during the course of a project, the “construction start”McGraw-Hill data can be used as an estimated measure of actual final project costs, andare highly applicable to assessing local, regional, state, and national trends inconstruction spending.California and Florida public school construction expenditures have been increasing,even when adjusted for inflation. However, Florida has had a more stable program forschool construction than California’s episodic state bond driven program. Such capitalfunding stability is an important element of a well-managed school construction program.(Filardo 1999).Vincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities6

Figure 3: Comparison of Public School Construction Bid Starts in California and Florida, 1995-2004Total Construction Expenditure(in 2005 dollars)CaliforniaFlorida 6,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 01995199619971998199920002001200220032004Calif ornia 985,224,549 1,096,126,445 2,735,509,161 1,512,536,155 2,701,251,171 2,723,848,317 3,001,979,303 3,277,774,158 5,678,829,582 5,579,258,686Florida 1,367,272,691 1,291,077,311 1,170,829,419 1,074,743,957 2,303,117,567 1,633,848,483 1,732,553,229 1,765,573,147 2,221,946,143 1,762,310,355Source: McGraw-Hill ConstructionLooking at school construction expenditures per student between 1995 and 2004 acrossthe nation, Figure 4 shows tremendous disparity by state. California spent 4,919 perstudent, well below the national average of 6,519 per student, and Florida spent 6,915per student, slightly more than the national average (Filardo et al. 2006).Figure 4: Public School Construction Expenditures per Student, by State, 1995-2004National Average 6,519 per studentSources: McGraw-Hill Construction, National Center for Education StatisticsVincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities7

These data are not adjusted for regional differences in the cost of labor and so maskdifferences in the “real” construction work these dollars buy. For example, the samedollar in Florida buys almost 30 percent more school construction than in California(Vincent and McKoy 2008).3 Although California led the nation in total schoolconstruction spending, school districts in the state invested far less per student than thenational average and due to the high cost of construction, procured fewer improvementsfor those investments.Spending PressuresThe need for public school facilities investment across the country over the last decade –both for new construction and for renovating and expanding existing schools – haslargely been driven by four factors: 1) enrollment growth; 2) aging buildings; 3) federaland state mandates and 4) changes in education.Enrollment GrowthCalifornia and Florida, along with other southwestern and southeastern states haveexperienced tremendous public school enrollment growth since 1995, as shown in Figure5. Public school enrollment in California increased by 19 percent, while Floridaenrollment increased by 23 percent. California and Florida’s growth has been drivenlargely by national domestic migration patterns to south and western regions and bycontinued strong immigration rates.Figure 5: Public School Enrollment Change 1995-2004Source: National Center for Education Statistics3Florida labor costs are on average 81 percent of the national average and California is 108 percent of thenational average, according to Engineering News Record construction indices, 2003.Vincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities8

California and Florida’s growth, in part, has come at the expense of many Midwestern,northern, and northeastern urban regions, particularly those in the “rustbelt.” Many ofthese communities have seen slow or declining population and economic growth andstagnating public investment in public infrastructure (Fox and Truehaft 2005). In theseareas, older cities are being abandoned, while suburban and exurban areas continue togrow, mainly as families seek employment, new housing choices they can afford, betterschools, public safety, and other public services and infrastructure that local governmentsin declining cities are hard-pressed to provide.Like many other western and southeastern states, California and Florida both spent alarge share of their school construction expenditures on new school construction (43percent and 54 percent, respectively), as shown in Figure 6. This is not surprising giventhe high enrollment growth and intense overcrowding California and Florida experiencedsince 1995 (Colmenar et al. 2005).Figure 6: Share of New Construction Bid Starts by State 1995-2004Aging BuildingsThe average age of the nation’s public schools is about 40 years. Without necessaryongoing maintenance and capital investment, conditions in existing school facilitiesdeteriorate. Inadequate maintenance spending on school facilities is evident by the factthat American Society of Civil Engineers (ACSE 2005) gave public schools nationallyone of the lowest ratings (“D”) of all infrastructure. In its national study of the conditionof the country’s public school buildings, the GAO (1995; 1996) found that California hadamong the worst school facility conditions.4 In California, 43 percent of schools reported4Nationally, the GAO found that one-third of all public school buildings in the country—about 25,000,serving nearly 14 million children—were found to be in a serious state of disrepair. Twenty-five millionVincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities9

having one or more inadequate building. In Florida, 31 percent of schools reportedhaving one or more inadequate buildings. Florida was slightly better than the nationalaverage of 33 percent, with California being significantly worse. However, in both states,the vast majority (87 percent and 85 percent, respectively) of schools reported the need toupgrade or repair on-site buildings to good overall condition. Thus, while both states hadcondition disparities in school facilities in 1995, California was found to have worseconditions compared to Florida. Although California and Florida experienced comparablepublic school enrollment growth over the decade, their schools were not in comparablecondition in the mid 1990s. As a result, having more than twice as many students asFlorida, California needs a far greater scale of investment in its existing schools.Federal and State MandatesThere are a number of federal and state mandates that put pressure on school districtconstruction costs and requirements. These mandates address issues of health, safety, andrights of access. Some requirements affect the actual design of a building, while othersaffect the methods or processes required during construction or renovation.They key health and safety requirements mandated by federal law are related to asbestosand lead. The federal requirements associated with their management and abatementaffect the cost, type, and scope of construction work undertaken by school districts. TheAsbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) managed by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), which promulgated the Asbestos-Containing Materials inSchools Rule has had widespread impact. This rule requires all private and public nonprofit elementary and secondary schools to inspect their schools for asbestos containingbuilding materials (ACBM), develop a plan to manage the asbestos in each schoolbuilding, notify parents and staff regarding the management plan availability, provideasbestos awareness training to school maintenance and custodial workers, and implementtimely actions (repair, encapsulation, enclosure, removal) to deal with dangerous asbestossituations.Another environmental hazard addressed by the EPA is lead. In any child-occupiedfacility there must be inspection, risk assessment, and abatement of lead-based paint.Lead-based paint was commonly used on radiators, pipes, windows, and particularlyexterior doors, baseboards, and boiler rooms up until the 1970s. It must be abated when itcreates dust or is loose and when a building is renovated. Like asbestos, when working onexisting buildings, contractors have special requirements for testing, working in areaswith lead based paint and disposing of materials that contain lead based paint thatincrease the cost of a project.The federal mandates affecting access to public schools and education are Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),and Title IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The most significant newfederal requirement affecting facilities is Title II of the American with Disabilities Actwhich extends the rights of individuals with disabilities. All public buildings must bechildren attend schools in buildings with at least one unsatisfactory condition. These most decrepit schoolsserve primarily minority and low-income students.Vincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities10

accessible to persons with handicaps. Existing buildings should all be modified within atimeframe, and buildings undergoing a certain level of improvements must be modifiedto meet ADA requirements. While most people think of the ADA affecting mobilitywithin a building, it also affects requirements for acoustics and signage associated withhearing or sight-related disabilities.With the passage of the first Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1972 schoolsystems began a transformation to extend schooling to students who were often excludedfrom public school altogether. Now IDEA requires that any school receiving federalfunds must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children withdisabilities in the least restrictive setting with the appropriate instruction and services toadvance them socially and academically. The regulations implementing these lawsrequire that students with disabilities receive benefits and services comparable to thosegiven their nondisabled peers. In addition to changes that extend education by disability,Title IX has extended educational programs—particularly athletics and physicaleducation—by gender. Title IX requires that no school receiving federal funds canexclude from participation, deny benefits, or discriminate by gender access to anyeducation program or activity.Finally, although not occurring at the federal level, as ADA, IDEA and Title IX, somestates are extending the age for which education is available by right. In manycommunities full-day kindergarten is still considered an innovation, but more and moreschool districts offer not just full day kindergarten, but Pre-kindergarten for 4 year olds,Headstart, and even locally funded pre-school programs for 3 year olds. New Jersey, inparticular must provide pre-school to all children from the lowest income school districts,as a part of the settlement of the educational adequacy and equity challenge brought inthe Abbott court case.5 The expansion of early childhood education is changing schoolsdramatically, increasing enrollments and bringing significant modifications to buildingand grounds design and construction.There are other state level mandates for school districts that impact the need for schoolconstruction and the school construction programs. In California, the Field Act often isidentified as the most costly with which to comply. It requires schools to be constructedto meet heightened structural safety standards to withstand earthquakes. In Floridadesignated public schools have hurricane hardening requirements for windows and roofsthat ensure they are secure shelters for the public.Changes in EducationThe need for school construction spending has also been driven by demands on schoolfacilities to support the changing needs of students, teachers, and communities. There aremany new practices, programs, and services in public schools, for which design changesare needed. There are a number of educational changes which put pressure on schoolfacilities:5Footnote on Abbott here.Vincent & Filardo: Linking School Construction to Equity, Smart Growth, and Healthy Communities11

The desire by parents and educators for “small”—small class size and smallschools has significant effect on school facility design and is changing the sizeand amount of space needed for schools.Schools built in urban districts at the beginning of the 20th century did not providecafeterias, since students returned home for lunch. While this practice has longsince been changed to provide daily lunch, and often breakfast to students, manyof the oldest school buildings do not have adequate cafeteria or food serviceamenities.Technology in administration, operations and instruction is changing schooldesign and construction. There is wide use of video/DVD, computers, and internetin schools for administration, operations, particularly security related and forinstruction.Significant changes in our economy have transformed career and technicaleducation in secondary schools.Many schools are also now being designed or reconfigured for use by members ofthe community outside of regular school hours.These trends and others associated with curriculum and pedagogy are seen across thecountry, and the school design needed to support these educational programs, practices,and services are included in any high quality new school design, and should be includedin any school renovation.Infrastructure EquityIn addition to these internal pressures to improve school facilities, where states have notstepped forward to address these problems, there have been extensive court challenges tothe equity and adequacy of funding for school facilities. States that had

2 McGraw Hill Construction, a segment of McGraw Hill Companies collects detailed project-level data on every building project valued at more than 100,000 undertaken by the nation’s school districts. These proprietary McGraw Hill data are collected in real time for the pu