Funding public school construction in the United States

This is a limited study of the effectiveness of various funding methods used by the states to encourage and support construction activities involving public schools in the United States. Particular attention is paid to the public policy arena of the states and how these policies affect school district efforts to remediate infrastructure needs. The report reviews the current condition of the nation's public school facilities including the estimated unmet funding requirements necessary to correct infrastructure needs. Additionally, the most common funding methods used by the states to support these construction activities are considered. The study relies on documents available in the public domain and spans a broad realm of inquiry, including education, finance, economics, facilities management, law and political science. Four research questions were considered as part of this study: (1) What is the value of unmet infrastructure needs in each state? (2) Which funding methods are used by each state to fund construction activities for public, K–12 facilities? (3) How effective are these funding methods in terms of reducing unmet infrastructure needs? (4) How difficult is it to make comparisons across the states? The researcher's findings are presented in this report. In brief, the researcher found the value of unmet infrastructure needs for public schools in the United States is at least $266 billion as of 1999. Second, the fifty states use six primary funding methods to support construction activities to remedy these needs: flat grants, equalized support, basic support, categorical grants, no state support, and full state funding. Third, consistent with economic principles, the fiscal policy of the states affects the behavior and choices of school districts. Additionally, an association between the type of funding method employed by the states and the mean dollars per pupil of infrastructure need is indicated. The researcher found that those states using an equalized funding approach, on average, have greater infrastructure needs (e. g. , mean dollars per pupil) than those states employing a categorical grant or flat grant approach. Finally, comparisons across the states are difficult to make and there is significant need for central reporting and assessment of infrastructure requirements.