california’s k-12 educational infrastructure needs

7/31/2019 Californias K-12 Educational Infrastructure Needs

1/85

Californias K-12 Educaonal

Infrastructure Investments:

Leveraging the States Role for Quality School Facilies in

Sustainable Communies

A Policy Research Report to the California Department of Educaon

2012

hp://citesandschools.berkeley.edu


2/85

Californias K-12 Educational Infrastructure Investments

i

AboutthisReport

TheresearchandwritingofthisreportwasledbyJeffreyM.Vincent,PhD,withassistancefrom

DeborahL.McKoy,PhD,MarkLeinauer,andPauloPisco.MaryFilardo,ExecutiveDirectorofthe

21

st

CenturySchoolFund,servedasnationalpolicyadvisortothestudy.FundingforthisworkwasprovidedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,theCaliforniaEndowment,andthe

InstituteofUrbanandRegionalDevelopmentattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

Acknowledgements

TheUniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleysCenterforCities&SchoolsgreatlythankstheCalifornia

DepartmentofEducation(CDE)fortheopportunitytoconductthisstudyandprovidepolicy

researchguidance.WeparticularlythankKathleenMoore,FredYeager,andtherestofthestaff

oftheCDEsSchoolFacilitiesandTransportationServicesDivision.Wealsothankthemany

individualsfromacrossthestateandnationwhospokewithusandsharedtheirinsights,

experiences,andpolicyknowledge.Additionally,wethanktheCaliforniaEndowmentfor

supportingtheresearchinthisreport.Anyerrorshereinaretheresponsibilityoftheprimary

author.

AbouttheCenterforCities&Schools

TheCenterforCities&Schoolsatthe

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeleyisan

action-oriented,policyandtechnical

assistancedo-tank,whosemissionistopromotehigh-qualityeducationasan

essentialcomponentofurbanand

metropolitanvitalitytocreateequitable,

healthy,andsustainablecommunitiesforall.

http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/

SuggestedCitation

Vincent,JeffreyM.(2012).CaliforniasK-12EducationalInfrastructureInvestments:LeveragingtheStatesRolefor

QualitySchoolFacilitiesinSustainableCommunities.Berkeley:CenterforCities&Schools,UniversityofCalifornia.

Copyright2012CenterforCities&Schools,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Coverimages(lr):SaidaOnline;JessiDimmock;KarenTapia,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton.


3/85


ii

AMessagefromStateSuperintendentofPublic

InstructionTomTorlakson

A Message from State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

Californias schools are in a fiscal emergency. Shrinking state resources are forcing schoolboards to make tough decisions in all areasstaffing, curriculum, student support services, andfacilities. When facing these unprecedented challenges with continually decreasing resources,the state, our school boards, superintendents, and communities have an even greater need toplan for quality, equity, efficiencies, and accountability.

One of the first efforts I undertook as State Superintendent of Public Instruction was to createthe Schools of the Future Initiative. This broad based group of educators, business leaders, andpolicy makers provided recommendations in two key areas: School Facility Program Reformand High Performance Schools. I did this because we know from research and experience thatquality school facilities help to attract and retain teachers, support improved student outcomes,and provide a positive economic impact to a community.

These recommendations from the Schools of the Future Initiative were only the first step. Thisreport commissioned by the California Department of Education and prepared by the Universityof California Berkeley, Center for Cities and Schools helps advance many of theserecommendations and frame the larger school facility policy issues. The state and local districtscannot afford to lose the ground we gained from investing $100 billion in school facilities overthe past decade.

This much needed report identifies key policy linkages between school facility policy and thestate's climate change goals. Strategically locating schools, ensuring safe walking routes,

reinvesting in our 10,000 existing schools, and fostering increased district and city collaborationwill be key in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and creating a healthy California for todayand the future.

I am pleased to accept this report and have tasked the Director of School Facilities to take thelead on preparing an implementation plan with stakeholder input. The California Department ofEducation will work collaboratively with state agencies and all stakeholders to ensure theseefforts are comprehensive and address the needs of all students. For some of the neededactions legislation is necessary, and I look forward to working with the legislature, the Governor,school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools in creating policies and fundingthat will help to move Californias schools and communities forward.

So despite the current fiscal emergency, we have opportunities to shape the future. I amoptimistic that our efforts today will create a better tomorrow. The education, health, andwell-being of our students, our communities, and our state depend on it.


4/85


iii

Preface

Schoolfacilitiesmatter.

Theymattertothemorethan6millionstudentswhoenteraschoolbuildingeveryday,tothe

teachersandstaffwhoeducateourstudentsandwhoseworkplaceisaschool,andto

communitieswheretheschoolservesasanintegralspaceforneighborhoodactivity.

Californiavotersknowthisintrinsicallyandhaveconsistentlyinvestedinschoolfacilitiesby

passingstatewidebondmeasures.

Since1998,thestatesvotershaveprovidedmorethan$35billioninstatebondfundsand

votersinschooldistrictsthroughoutthestatehavecontributedmorethan$66billionforour

schoolfacilities.Withthesebondsanddeveloperfees,Californiasschooldistricts,county

officesofeducation,andcharterschoolshavebeenabletomakeanhistoricinvestmentin

buildinghundredsofnewschoolschoolsandinmodernizingthousandsofexistingschools.

Now,fourteenyearslater,thestateaswellasthenationandtheworldareinadifferent

placeaneconomicrecession,afocusonsustainability,andtheneedtoclosethe

achievementgapareinformingeducationpolicyanditisnecessarytoreexaminethestate

andlocalfacilitypartnership.Toframethisneededdiscussion,theCaliforniaDepartmentof

EducationsolicitedthisreportfromtheCenterforCities&SchoolsatUniversityofCalifornia,

Berkeley.

Theissuesraisedhereinwillhelpdrivetheneededconversationbetweennowand2014about

whatthenextstatewideK-12schoolconstructionfundingprogramshouldlooklike,andhow

schoolscanbekeypartnersinachievingthestatesenvironmentalgoals.

Thelinkbetweenqualityschoolfacilitiesandstudentachievementiswell-documentedin

researchandbyourcommonexperiences,andthecontinuedstateinvestmentinschool

facilitiesinfrastructureshouldbespentonhigh-impactoutcomesthatimproveourschools,our

communities,andourstate.Schoolsneedtobelearner-centered,safe,andsustainablecenters

oftheircommunities.Itistimetoexamineourbeliefs,reevaluatehowwehavebeendoing

business,andcommitourselvestogettingevenbetterresults.

Thankyoufortakingthetimetoreadthisreport,andIhopethatyouwillactivelyparticipatein

Californiaseffortstohavegreatschoolsandthrivingchildren.

KathleenJ.Moore,Director,SchoolFacilitiesandTransportationServicesDivision,

CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,June2012


5/85


iv

Contents

AMessagefromStateSuperintendentofPublic

InstructionTomTorlakson ii

Preface iii

ExecutiveSummary v

I. ADecadeofProgressforCaliforniasK-12Educational

Infrastructure 1

II. TheStateRoleinK-12EducationalInfrastructureandSustainableCommunities 6

III.Findings:BarrierstoK-12InfrastructureAlignment 16

IV.Recommendations:LeveragingtheStatesRolefor

QualitySchoolFacilitiesinSustainableCommunities 36

V. Conclusion:MeetingtheChallenge 60

ListofAbbreviations 61

Endnotes 62

Appendices 70


6/85


v

ExecutiveSummaryInCaliforniasK-12EducationalInfrastructureInvestments:LeveragingtheStatesRoleforQualitySchool

FacilitiesinSustainableCommunities,theUniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleysCenterforCities&Schools

providesananalysisofthestatesK-12infrastructurepolicies,regulations,andfundingpatterns.Findings

revealtheneedtogreatlyrefineschoolfacilitiesplanningandfundingpoliciesandpracticestopromotesound,efficient,andgoal-orienteddecisionmakingatstateandlocallevels.Therecommendationsre-

envisionthestatesroleinK-12infrastructureasoneofappropriatelysupportingeducationaloutcomesand

contributingtomoresustainablecommunitiesthroughaframeworkofpublicinfrastructurebestpractices

forsoundplanning,effectivemanagement,adequateandequitablefunding,andappropriateoversight.The

recommendationsbuildonthoseputforthinrecentCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation(CDE)reports,

includingSchoolsoftheFuture (2011),BlueprintforGreatSchools (2011),andRe-VisioningSchoolFacilities

forthe21stCentury(2009),andlayoutavision,policyframework,andimplementationplantoequitablyand

efficientlyimprovelearningenvironmentsforCalifornias6millionstudents.

Sinceitscreationin1998,CaliforniasSchoolFacilityProgram(SFP)hasprovidedprofoundsupportforK-12

infrastructure.Asastateandlocalfundingpartnership,theSFPhasinvested$101.6billioninlocalandstategeneralobligation(G.O.)bondfundsinnewconstructionandmajorbuildingimprovementsthroughoutthe

state.Statebondfundscontributed$35.4billiontothistotalwhileLocalEducationalAgencies(LEAs)bond

fundscontributedthebalance,about$66.17billion.Ontopofthis,LEAsinvestedcountlessdollarsfromtheir

annualschooloperatingbudgetstowardsfacilities,anestimated$10to$15billioninlocaldeveloperfees

wasraised,andthestatecontributedabout$6.2billionindeferredmaintenancefundsthatwerematched

byLEAs.Together,thesecapitalfundsbelievedtototalabout$118billionbetween1998and2011

improvedthehealthandsafetyofmanyschoolfacilities,providednewschoolsforgrowingcommunities,

relievedovercrowdingthroughnewconstructionandadditions,contributedtocommunityand

environmentalimprovements,andhavebeenajobcreationengine.

However,ourresearchfindingsindicatethatpolicyreformsandfutureinvestmentareneededtoensurethesepastgainsarenotsquandered;therearetime-sensitiveopportunitiestoseizeimprovementsatboth

thestateandlocallevelsthat:1)equitablydistributethesebenefitsacrossallschools;and2)enhancethe

collaborationofLEAsandlocalgovernmentsforaligningandleveragingthesubstantialpublicinvestmentsin

landdevelopmentpatterns,K-12infrastructure,andotherinfrastructuresectors.Bystrategicallydoingboth,

Californiawillensureitspoliciesandinvestmentprioritiessupporteducationalqualityandpromotethe

statesbroaderinfrastructurefundinggoalsandnewpolicyshifttowardsmoresustainablecommunities.The

latterincludesimplementationofSenateBill(SB)375,upholdingthestateplanningprioritiesasoutlinedin

AssemblyBill(AB)857,andeffortsdiscussedindetailinourreport.Despitetheimportanceofschoolsas

communityinfrastructure,thestatesK-12facilityprogramcurrentlyisdisconnectedfromthebroader

effortstoalignotherstatewideinfrastructureinvestmentsaroundacommonsetofsustainabilitygoals.

Overthenextdecade,weestimatethatCaliforniasK-12schoolfacilitiesneedaboutthesamelevelof

investmenttheyhadoverthelastdecadetoprovidesafe,modern,equitable,andsustainablelearning

environmentsforallstudents.Wecalculatethat$117billionintotalcapitalinvestment(fromallsources)is

neededtomakegoodonthepreviousdecadeshistoricinvestment.However,theinvestmentoverthe

comingdecadeshouldbestructureddifferentlythanthatofthepreviousdecadetobestaddresstheneeds

inlocalcommunitiesacrossthestate.Whereasmuchoftheinvestmentsince1998wasaimedatnew

constructiontoaccommodateenrollmentgrowthandcrowding,thenextdecadewillneedtoprioritize


7/85


vi

existingschoolfacilities.Aparticularfocusshouldbeonimprovingsubstandardlearningenvironmentsand

eliminatingdeferredmaintenanceneedsthroughannualcapitalrenewalsinvestments(anindustry

standard),majormodernizationsforbothlife-safetyandeducationalprogramdelivery,andwhere

necessaryfullreplacementofoutmodedbuildingsthathinderhealth,safety,and/orqualityteachingand

learning.

Byfollowingtherecommendationsinthisreport,theStateofCaliforniawillbestleverageitspolicy,

regulatory,andfundingroletolinkitsplanningandinvestmentinK-12schoolfacilitiestoother

infrastructuresectorsformultiplebenefitstoeducationandlocalcommunities.

Findings:BarrierstoK-12InfrastructureAlignmentAhostofpolicyandimplementationchallengesremainbarrierstoCaliforniamaximizingitsstrategicuseof

state-levelK-12infrastructurefunds.Ourresearchfindingsindicateconcernsofinequitablefacilitycondition;

inadequateinvestment,particularlyinexistingfacilities;andlackoflocalgovernmentandLEAcollaboration

aroundinfrastructureandlandusedecisions.Wefoundlikelycausesforthesechallengesinthecapital

facilityplanning,management,funding,andaccountabilitysystemsinplacein

thestate.Thekeyfindingsare:

PlanningChallenges

CaliforniasK-12infrastructuredemandsdifferfromthoseofadecadeago CalifornialacksclearlydefinedK-12infrastructureinvestmentpriorities CaliforniassustainablecommunitiespoliciesexcludeK-12infrastructure TheSchoolFacilityProgramhaslittleauthorityoversustainable

communitiesoutcomes

Policyandregulatoryguidanceforlocalintergovernmentalplanningisinsufficient

ManagementChallenges CalifornialackstheinformationtoguidestrategicK-12infrastructure

decisions

ConcernsofdistrustandinefficiencyplaguetheSchoolFacilitiesProgram CaliforniasK-12facilitygrantslackflexibilityforplanninganddesignfor

21stcenturylearning

FundingChallenges

Fundingofmodernizationsforhealth,safety,andeducationqualityhasfallenshort

CaliforniasK-12infrastructurespendinghasbeeninequitable LEAswillstillneedfundingassistancefornewschoolconstruction CaliforniasepisodicandunstablescheduleforK-12infrastructurefunding

createsinefficiencies

Overthenextdecade,CaliforniaK-12schoolfacilitiesneedanestimated$117billionincapitalinvestmentstoensuresafe,modern,equitable,andsustainablelearningenvironmentsforallstudents

AccountabilityChallenges

CalifornialacksthemetricsandsystemsneededtoensurehighvaluereturnonstateandlocalK-12educationalinfrastructureinvestment


8/85


vii

Recommendations:LeveragingtheStatesRoleforQualitySchoolFacilities

inSustainableCommunitiesThroughouranalysisofCaliforniaspoliciesandfundingtrendsonK-12schoolfacilitiesandother

infrastructure,ourextensiveinterviewswithrelevantstakeholdersstatewide,andourstudyK-12school

facilityprogramsandfundingpoliciesinallotherstates,wedevelopedrecommendationsforstrategicallyimprovingtheStateofCaliforniasroleinK-12schoolfacilities,andespeciallythenext

generationoftheSchoolFacilityProgram(SFP).Theserecommendationsaimtoensurethatstate

fundingisadequateandfairlyallocated;thatstateapprovalsenhanceaccountability,butareefficient;

andthatstatepoliciespromotelocalplanningtointegrateK-12facilitiesandsustainablecommunity

infrastructure.Therecommendationsfurtheroutlineacoherentsetofguidelines,standards,incentives,

technicalsupport,andinvestmentprioritiesforCalifornia.Wehavefocusedonwhatthestatecandoto

supportLEAsandotherlocalgovernmentsindeliveringhigh-qualityschoolfacilitiesinsustainable

communities,whichinvolvesimplementationofthreekeyelements:policyreforms,process

innovations,andtechnologytools.

1)TheCaliforniaStateLegislatureshouldadoptavisionandmasterplanforthestatesK-12

infrastructureinvestment.AsolidvisionandmasterplanisneededforCaliforniatostrategically

investitsstate-levelK-12schoolfacilitiesfunds.Thestatesaimshouldbetofirstandforemostaddress

educationalneeds,butalsotosupportthestatesbroadergoalsofsustainablecommunities.Aswe

foundinourresearch,thestatesinvestmentprioritiesonK-12infrastructurearefallingshortonboth.

TheStateLegislatureshouldestablishataskforce(orequivalent)todevelopavisionwithguiding

principlesandamasterplanforthestateK-12facilitiesprogram.Thetaskforceshouldusethisreportas

aguide.Thevision,principles,andplanshouldthenguideallstate-levelagenciesinvolvedwithK-12

facilities,helpingtocreateanintegratedpolicyframeworkformultisectoralstrategiccapitalplanning

andalignthegoalsofK-12infrastructureinvestmentwiththestatesbroaderinfrastructureinvestment

goals.a. K-12schoolinfrastructureshouldhaverepresentationontheStrategicGrowthCouncil

2)Thestateshouldmoreactivelypromotelocalplanningthatadvancesqualityeducationand

sustainablecommunities.Improvedclarityinstatecodesonlocalintergovernmentalplanningis

neededforacollaborativeshifttowardsensuringhigh-qualityschoolsandsustainablecommunities..

Statepoliciesplayarolebyestablishingmandatesandincentivestoencouragelocalleaderstowork

together.BecauseschoolfacilitiesplanningandmanagementinCaliforniaisalocalLEAresponsibility,

statepoliciesshouldbedesignedtoencourageandsupportwell-managedlocalcapitalplanning

programsinadditiontoprovidingfundingassistanceandsettingvariousstandards.a. K-12schoolinfrastructureshouldbeincludedinsustainablecommunitiespolicyandimplementation

b. Schooldistrictsneedstandards-basedEducationalFacilitiesMasterPlansc. Policy,regulatory,andbestpracticesguidancefromstateagenciesshouldbeavailabletosupportlocal

intergovernmentalcollaboration

d. K-12facilitiesprojectsreceivingstatefundingshouldmeetminimumgreenbuildingcriteria

e. CEQAshouldbeusedtoidentifyandimplementlanduseandschoolsiteplanningchangestosupportmore

sustainablecommunities


9/85


viii

3)Thestateshouldassemblethenecessaryinformationtostrategicallyprioritizefundingfor

schoolfacilitieswithhighestneeds.Highlevelsofdeferredmaintenanceandotherfacility

deficienciesareasignificantconcernforCalifornia,mostimportantlybecausetheyhinderteachingand

learningandworkagainsteducation,health,safety,andotherstategoals.Throughitsabilityto

prioritizefunding,awardhardshipgrants,andotherpolicylevers,theStateofCaliforniacanplayanimportantroleinassistingLEAsinbuildingnewschoolsandrepairingandmodernizingexistingschools

tobestsupportstudentsuccessandovercomethedeeplyentrenchedachievementgapexperiencedby

low-income,AfricanAmerican,andLatinostudents.Toensurethatschoolfacilitypoliciesandfunding

decisionsaremadeinthebestinterestsofCaliforniaschildren,educationdata,facilityinformation,and

establishedprioritiesshouldbetheguide.Strategicdecisionscanonlybemadewithgoodinformation

thatisavailabletodecisionmakersandthepublic.a. DevelopaninventoryandassessmenttoolthatmeasurestheconditionsandqualitiesofallCaliforniapublic

schoolfacilities

4)TheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationshouldworkwitheducators,communities,and

designprofessionalstoreviewthestandardsinCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title5toensuretheyprovideforeffectiveandefficientpublicplanningprocessesandareasoundbasis

forqualityschoolfacilitiesthatcontributetosustainablecommunities.Thestandardsin

CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title5(Title5)playanimportantroleinshapingschoolplanningand

designatthelocallevel.Thesedesignandcondition(andother)standardsforexistingandnewpublic

schoolfacilitiesareneededsothatprioritiesandfundingadequacycanbedeterminedbasedonclear

benchmarks.LEAshavewidelatitudeinthedesignoftheirschoolsandthestandardsarestructuredto

allowforLEAcustomizationsolongastheydemonstratetotheCDEthatstudentsafetyandeducational

appropriatenessarenotcompromised.Thestatemustdeterminewhatspaces/physicalcomponentsa

schoolreceivingstatefacilitiesfundsshouldminimallyincludeindependentofthewealthofthe

community.ThereviewandupdatingofTitle5alsoneedstotakeintoconsiderationthestatesnew

sustainablecommunitiesprioritiesincludingoutliningstandardsforintergovernmentalplanningforthe

replacement,modernization,andexpansionofexistingschools;sitingnewschoolsininfilllocations

and/oradjacenttoexisting/planningdevelopmentthatpromotecompactdevelopmentandwalkability;

andpromotingjointuseofschoolandcommunityfacilities.a. Conductastatewidecomparisonofexistingbuildingspaces,features,andamenitiesb. EnsurethereviewandupdateofTitle5supportsthestatesnewsustainablecommunitiespriorities

5)Thestateshouldsetprioritiesforremedyinginadequatefacilitiesandsupportingnew

construction.Akeypriorityforsupportinghigh-qualityeducationinCaliforniashouldbeensuringall

schoolsmeetthenewminimumconditionalstandards.Byhavingthistypeoffundingprioritizationin

theshortterm,CaliforniawillensurethateducationalgoalsdriveK-12facilityfundingpatterns.Forexample,ifclosingtheachievementgapisastateeducationgoal,thenonestepinthatdirectionis

closingtheschoolfacilityconditiongap.Followingthestatewideinventoryandbuildingconditions

assessment(Recommendation3),andtheupdatingofTitle5standards(Recommendation4),thestate

canworkwithLEAstoidentifystatewideneeds.Thestate(e.g.,CDE)shouldworkonacase-by-case

basiswiththeLEAsofschoolsthatfallbelowthestandardstodeterminewhatinvestmentsneedtobe

made,includingbuildingreplacementsandmajormodernizations.Thestateshouldalsostrategically

strengthenitssupporttoLEAsfornewconstruction.Theneedsforthisfundingwouldfluctuateover


10/85


ix

timeinaccordancewithenrollmenttrends,regionalgrowth,sustainablecommunitiesgoals,andother

factors.Overall,theseprioritiesshouldbothsupporthigh-qualityeducationandalignwiththestates

broaderinfrastructureinvestmentandsustainablecommunitieslanddevelopmentgoals.a. Identifythestate-levelneedforfullschoolmodernization,buildingreplacement,andnewconstruction

b. Establishcriteriaforrankingfullschoolmodernization,buildingreplacement,andnewconstructionprojects

c. Bringschoolsnotbeingreplacedorfullymodernizeduptominimumconditionsstandardsbyeliminatingdeferredmaintenanceneeds

d. Workwiththelegislaturetodevelopatransparentandeasilyunderstoodformulatodirectstatefundstothehighestneedprojects

6)Toprotectthestatesinvestmentandaidinsupportingeducationalachievement,fundsfor

thestateshareincapitalrenewalsshouldbeprovidedtoallschooldistrictsannually,adjusted

forlocalwealth,need,andeffort.Tochipawayatthephysicalconditionsdeficienciesinindividual

K-12facilitiesacrossthestate(especiallythosenotaddressedthroughbuildingreplacementsand

modernizationsforeducationprogramdelivery)andtokeeplevelsofthesedeficienciesfromrisingin

thefuture,thestateshouldestablishanongoingprogramthatprovidesfundsannuallytoLEAs,toassist

withcapitalrenewals.Renewalisthescheduledreplacementorrestorationofbasicbuildingsystems,

components,andfinishesthathaveexceededtheirservicelife.Providingdedicated,predictablefunding

toLEAsforcapitalrenewalswillalsocurtailtheprocessinefficienciesandfacilitydeficienciesthatresult,

inpart,fromCaliforniascurrentepisodicandunstablebond-drivenK-12infrastructureinvestment

pattern.CapitalrenewalfundingwillalsohelpremedytheeffectsofincreasedLEAsflexingof

deferredmaintenancefundsinrecentyears.Itwillalsohelpsafeguardthestatefromfacilityequity

lawsuitsinthefuture.Aneffectiveandwell-managedcapitalrenewalsstateprogramshouldhave

appropriatefundingamountstoaddressprioritizedneeds(asoutlinedinthisreport)andatransparent

formulawithanestablishedstateshareprioritizinglow-wealth,high-need,andhigh-effortLEAs.

7)ThestateshouldidentifymultiplerevenuesourcesforcontributingtoLEAnewconstruction,buildingreplacements,modernizations,andcapitalrenewals.ToensurethattheStateof

CaliforniaismeetingitsshareofK-12capitalinvestment,multiplerevenuesourceswillbeneeded.The

stateshouldassessoptionsformorestableandadequatestatefundingsourcesratherthanrelysolely

ondebtfinancingthroughG.O.bonds.a. ConsiderastatewidespecialtaxtofundannualK-12capitalrenewals

b. Passenablinglegislationforpublic/publicandpublic/privatepartnershipsforschoolconstruction

c. Continuetouseperiodicbondproceeds

8)TheCaliforniaStateLegislatureandtheStateAllocationBoardshouldimprovepublic

accountabilityprocesseswithintheSchoolFacilityProgram.Improvedaccountabilitymeasures

areneededtorealizeprocessefficienciesandachievedesiredoutcomesfromstateinvestment.a. ProduceanannualreportonK-12capitalfundingpatterns

b. Developastate-level,interagencyprojectmanagementinformationsystem

c. EstablishastatelevelSFPCitizensOversightCommittee

d. MaintaintheSABsImplementationCommitteeasamechanismforpolicyandregulatoryfeedback

e. CoordinateandstreamlineSFPapprovalprocessestoincreaseefficiencies

f. Supportplanningprocessesandtechnologytoolstorealizeefficiencies


11/85


1

Californias

School Facility

Program has

made a

profoundly

important

investment in

the state andits children.

I. ADecadeofProgressforCaliforniasK-12

EducationalInfrastructure

CaliforniasSchoolFacilityProgram(SFP)hasbeenaprofoundlyimportantK-12infrastructureprogramforthestateanditschildren.Themostrecentprogram

beganin1998andwasstructuredasastateandlocalfundingpartnership.Since

1998,thisfundingpartnershiphasinvested$101.6billioninlocalandstategeneral

obligation(G.O.)bondfundsinnewconstructionandmajorbuildingimprovements

throughoutthestate.Statebondfundscontributed$35.4billionofthistotaland

LocalEducationalAgencies(LEAs)bondfundscontributedtherest,about$66.2

billion.Ontopofthis,LEAsinvestedcountlessdollarsfromtheirannualschool

operatingbudgetstowardsfacilities,anestimated$10to$15billioninlocal

developerfeeswasraised,andthestatecontributedabout$6.2billionindeferred

maintenancefundsthatwerematchedbyLEAs.Together,thesecapitalfunds

believedtototalabout$118billionimprovedthehealthandsafetyofmanyschool

facilities,providednewschoolsforgrowingcommunities,relievedovercrowding

throughnewconstructionandadditions,contributedtocommunityand

environmentalimprovementsinolderneighborhoods,andhave

beenasizablejobcreationengine.

Thismassiveandunprecedentedinvestmentcameata

timeofenormousneedamongschoolsinthestate.Tensof

thousandsofstudentswereonmultitrack,year-roundschedules

withashortenedschoolyear,attendingclassesinportable

buildings,experiencingintensecrowding,and/orbeingbusedtolesscrowdedschoolslocatedfartherfromtheirhomes.

Concurrently,studentenrollmentwasgrowing.Withstrong

votersupport,stateandlocalfundsjointlyaddressedthese

concerns.1Between1995and2004,CaliforniaLEAswereonly

spendinganaverageof$492perstudentperyearonfacilities.

WiththehelpofSFPfunds,thisratejumpedtoanaverageof

$1,569perstudentperyearbetween2005and2008.The

investmentsawCaliforniagofrom36thto6

thnationallyintotal

K-12facilityspending.2Underthestate-localfunding

partnershipestablishedbytheSFP,substantialimprovements

andexpansionshaveoccurredinthestatesK-12educational

infrastructure.Inrecentyears,theStateofCaliforniahas

contributedabout30%oftotalLEAcapitaloutlay,whileLEAs

havecontributed70%themselves.3


12/85


2

Butgoingforward,Californiafacesmajorchallengesinmaintainingandprioritizing

thestatecontributiontolocalK-12facilitiesneeds.

AvailablestatebondfundsforK-12facilitiesarenearlydepletedandoncegonetherearenomorestatefundstodistributeunlessanotherstatebondpasses. Whilethe

previousfourstatewideK-12bondshadstrongvotersupport,Californiascurrent

economicclimateismuchdifferentthanwhenthosebondspassed;thedowneconomy

andtheconcernsaboutrisingdebtservicecoststothestatesgeneralfundmakeanew

bondssuccessatthepollslesspredictable.

Basedonwhatisknownaboutschoolfacilityneedsacrossthestate,itissafetoassumetherewillbemuchmoreneedanddemandfromLEAsforstatematching

fundsthanwillbeavailable.CaliforniaLEAswillneedtocontinuetoinvestintheir

schoolfacilitiestoenricheducation,accommodatepopulationgrowth,relieveschool

overcrowding,eliminatedeferredmaintenance,keepupwiththenormallifecycleof

buildingsystemsandcomponents,andmodernizefacilitiestobothenhanceeducational

outcomesandutilizemoreefficientandsustainabletechnologies.Unfortunately,

Californiadoesnothaveasolidestimateofthestatewideschoolfacilityneeds;anexternal2008studyestimatedstatewideK-12 deferredmaintenanceneedsalonewere

$25.4billion.4NotkeepingupwiththevarietyofneededinvestmentsplacesCalifornias

childrenatstrongriskofexperiencingthesamefacility-relatedproblemstheSFPwas

establishedin1998toalleviate.Asnumerousstudieshaveshown,facilityproblemswork

againstpositiveeducationaloutcomes.Astheseproblemsmount,basicbuilding

conditionsworsenovertime.Additionally,educationalenhancementssuchas

technology,sciencelabs,otherspecialtyspacesfora21stcenturycurriculumarenot

occurring,particularlyinschoolsservinglow-incomechildren.Asaresultmanylow-

incomechildrenthroughoutthestatearenotbuilding21stcenturyskills.Theseproblems

areafunctionofinadequateandinequitableschoolfacilitiesfundingaconcernthatled

totheEliezerWilliams,etal.,vs.StateofCalifornia,etal.,lawsuitanditssettlementin

2004(describedlaterinthereport).

Mostfundamentally,Californiamustdecideifandhowitwillmaintainitslong-

standingcommitmenttofundingK-12educationalinfrastructureandensuresafe,

adequate,andeducationallyappropriatelearningenvironmentsforthestates6

millionstudents.WeassumethattheStateofCaliforniawillcontinuesomelevelof

statefundingforlocalK-12schoolfacilitiescourtdecisions,varioussectionsofthe

GovernmentCode,EducationCode15700,andtheLeroyF.GreenSchoolFacilities

Actof1998,beginningatEducationCode17070.10,suggestthestatehasan

ongoinglegalresponsibilityinthisregard.GiventheinescapablefactthatK-12school

facilitiesrequireongoingexpenditurestoremainsafeandhealthy,howwillstatefundsbeprioritizedtopromotethemostbeneficialoutcomes?

Atthesametime,Californiaisestablishingnewpoliciestoensurelanduse,

transportation,andinfrastructureinvestmentspromoteenergy,resourceuse,and

greenhousegasemissionslevelsthataresustainable.Thestatehasmade

unprecedentedpolicyshiftstobetteralignstatewideinfrastructureinvestment

towardsmoresustainablecommunities.Evidenceofthisshiftcanbeseeninthe


13/85


3

The

prioritization o

the next

generation of

K-12 facilities

funds should

be driven by

both the

states

educational

priorities and

its sustainable

communities

objectives.

creationoftheStrategicGrowthCouncil(SGC)andenactmentofclimatechange

legislation,includingAssemblyBill(AB)32,SenateBill(SB)375,andSB732

(describedlaterinthereport).Aseducationalandcommunityinfrastructure,K-12

facilitiesnotonlyaffecteducationaloutcomes,buttheyalsoaffectland

development,transportationpatterns,housingprices,residentialchoices,andwater

andutilitydemands.

However,despitetheimportanceofschoolsascommunityinfrastructureandtheir

impactonthestatessustainablecommunitiespriorities,thestatesK-12facility

programremainswhollydisconnectedfromthebroadereffortstoalign

infrastructureinvestmentsaroundacommonsetofgoals.AsCaliforniamovesto

alignallofitsinfrastructureinvestmentsectors,schoolfacilitiesplanningand

investmentshouldbeconnectedtotheseefforts.

TogetthebestvalueoutofthestatesK-12schoolfacilityinvestments,the

decisionsonhowtospendfuturestate-levelschoolfacilitiesfundsshouldbedrivenbyboththestateseducationalprioritiesanditssustainablecommunities

objectives.Likeanypublicpolicydecision,thiswilllikelyrequiremakingtradeoffs.

Buttobeclear:Californiaseducationalinfrastructureinvestmentprogramshould

firstandforemostsupporthigh-qualityeducation.Importantpolicyreformsarestill

neededtodothat,aswewilldiscuss.But,thestateseducationalinfrastructure

investmentshouldalsobesupportiveofandnotunderminethestates

sustainablecommunitiesgoalsandobjectives.Thus,whereverpossible,state-level

K-12facilitiespolicies,regulations,andinvestmentsshouldharnessesco-benefits

inmultipleareasofstatepriorities,includingthegoalsofhigh-qualitygreenpublic

schools5andmorehealthyandsustainablecommunities.

6Atthesametime,the

stateprogramshouldensureefficientpublicspendingatbothstateandlocallevels.

Leveragingbenefitsacrossmultiplestategoalswillhelpguaranteebettervalueof

publicfundsspent.

Inthispolicyresearchreport,theUniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleysCenterfor

Cities&SchoolsidentifiesbarriersandpresentsrecommendationstotheState

SuperintendentofPublicInstructionandtheStateLegislatureforstrategic

improvementstoCaliforniasstate-levelK-12facilitiesinvestmentandthe

prioritizationoffuturefunds.Ourrecommendationsbuildonthoseputforthin

recentCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation(CDE)reports,SchoolsoftheFuture

(2011),BlueprintforGreatSchools(2011),andRe-VisioningSchoolFacilitiesforthe21

stCentury(2009).Ourrecommendationsaddresspolicy,regulatory,andfinance

issueswithinaframeworkofpublicinfrastructurebestpracticeelementsof:

soundplanning, effectivemanagement, adequateandequitablefunding,and appropriateoversight.


14/85


4

WeproviderecommendationsforamorecoherentK-12infrastructureprogram

frameworkatthestatelevelthatwillinturnincentivizethesamesoundplanning

andinvestmentpracticesatthelocallevelbyLEAsandlocalgovernments.Such

recommendationsresultfromrecentpolicyreviewsofCaliforniasinfrastructure

investmentsandbettersupportmultisectoralcapitalplanningstrategies.7Our

recommendationswillhelpCaliforniamoveforwardtowardsthisgoalandrealizeco-

benefitsacrossmultiplestatepriorities.

ReportScopeandMethodologyThispolicyresearchreportasks:

HowcantheStateofCaliforniabetterpromoteefficientandsoundplanningforK-12schoolfacilitiesacrossthestate?

HowshouldthenextgenerationofCaliforniasstatelevelK-12schoolfacilitiesfundingbeprioritized?

Whatpolicyandregulatorychangesareneededtosupportsoundplanningandstrategicprioritizationofstatefunds?

Theresearchteamtookamultiprongedapproachtothecomplex,multifacetedissue

ofstate-levelK-12facilitiespolicy.First,weconductedextensivequalitativeresearch,

whichincludedparticipantobservationofconveningsofstatewidestakeholders(i.e.,

CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation(CDE)SchoolFacilitiesandTransportation

ServicesDivisions(SFTSD)AdvisoryCommittee,CoalitionforAdequateSchool

Housing(CASH)membershipmeetings,legislativehearingonSB132,Strategic

GrowthCouncil(SGC)meetings,andStateSuperintendentofPublicInstruction(SSPI)

TomTorlaksonsSchoolsoftheFutureTaskForce),andmorethan50stakeholder

interviewstounderstandfacility-relatedchallengesinschoolsandcommunitiesacrossthestate.Intervieweesincludedrepresentationfromschooldistricts;local,

county,andregionalgovernments;thestatelegislature;stateagencies;nonprofit

advocacygroups;academicresearchers;andpolicyexpertsfromacrossthecountry.

Second,wereviewedrecentpolicyresearchonandrecommendationsforCalifornias

K-12schoolfacilityprogramandinfrastructureinvestmentingeneral.Inmanycases,

wefoundusefulandapplicablerecommendationsfromearlierreportsonthisissue

toadapthere.WealsoanalyzedCaliforniaGovernmentCoderelatedtoschool

facilities.Third,weinvestigatedstate-levelK-12schoolfacilitypoliciesnationwideto

gleanideasforadaptationinCalifornia.Usingnationaldataonstateschoolfacility

policiesandprograms,weexaminedthedifferentpolicy,regulatory,andfunding

approaches,zeroinginononesthatappearinformativefortheCaliforniacontext.8

Thisreportconsistsoffivemainsections.SectionIIdescribesCaliforniasstatepolicy

frameworkforK-12infrastructureinvestmentandthestatesnewinfrastructure

investmentprioritizationformoresustainablecommunities,andthegrowinginterest

inaligningthetwo.SectionIIIoutlinestheresearchfindings,outliningthebarriers

andchallengestoK-12infrastructurealignment.SectionIVpresentsthepolicy


15/85


5

recommendationstoensurethewiseandstrategicuseofCaliforniasstate-levelK-12

schoolfacilitiesinvestment.SectionVconcludeswithachargefornextstepsin

implementingtherecommendations.

WefocusonlyminimallyonthecomplexissueofthesourceofstatefundsforK-12

facilities.WhileitislikelythattheStateofCaliforniawillcontinuefundingforlocalK-

12schoolfacilities,thesourceofthosefundsremainsanissuethatloomsonthe

horizongiventhatCaliforniasdebt-servicefrombondfundshasincreased

substantiallyaccordingtotheLegislativeAnalystsOffice.9

WhyK-12SchoolFacilitiesMatterforEducationalQualityand

SustainableCommunitiesResearchincreasinglyaffirmstheimportantconnectionsbetweenK-12educational

infrastructure,educationaloutcomes,andsustainablecommunitiesandprovidethe

rationaleforwhyCaliforniashouldbemorestrategicinK-12facilitiesfunding.

TheconditionsandqualitiesofK-12schoolfacilitiesandtheirenvironmentsaffectteachingandlearning.Theresearchonschoolbuildingconditionsandstudentoutcomes

findsaconsistentrelationshipbetweenpoorfacilitiesandpoorperformance.10

When

schoolfacilitiesareclean,ingoodrepair,anddesignedtosupporthighacademic

standards,thereislikelytobehigherstudentachievementindependentofstudent

socioeconomicstatus.Physicalandenvironmentalconditionsbothinsideschoolsand

classroomsincludingtheamountofnaturallight,theindoorairquality,the

temperature,andthecleanlinessallimpactstudentlearningandteachereffectiveness.

Thus,theconditionanddesignofschoolfacilitiesandgroundsplayaroleinpromoting

healthystudents,supportingeducationalperformance,andclosingtheachievementgap.

Theconditions,qualities,andlocationsofK-12facilitiesaffecthealthyandsustainablecommunitiesobjectives,includinglanduse,growth,andtravelpatterns. Aspublic

infrastructure,K-12schoolfacilitiesandgroundsimpactlocalandregionalcommunities

inmanyways.Schoolbuildingssignalschoolandneighborhoodqualitytopotential

residents,andnewschoolsitingandschoolclosingchoicescontributetothecharacterof

acommunityandtravelmodestoschoolforchildren.Neworwell-maintainedschool

facilitiescanhelprevitalizedistressedneighborhoods.11

Theactivitiesthatoccurinand

aroundschoolbuildingscanfurtherhelpbuildneighborhoodsocialcapitalandaffect

studentachievement.12

Investmentsintheconstructionandmaintenanceofschool

facilitiesinjectmoneyintolocaleconomiesthroughjobcreationandsupplypurchases.13

Schoolsitingchoicesareanimportantelementinasustainableschoolinfrastructure

program.14

Forexample,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)researchersfoundthatschoolsbuiltclosetostudentsreducetraffic,increasewalkingandbikingby13%,

andcouldcreatea15%emissionsreductionasaresultofdecreasedautomobiletravelto

andfromtheschoolsite.15

In2011,theEPAreleaseditsVoluntaryGuidelinesforSchool

Sitinginresponsetotheseconnectionsbetweenschoolsitechoicesandland

developmentandtravelpatternsandtoaddressthevacuuminstatepoliciesandlocal

governmentagencycollaborativelanduseandinfrastructureplanning.16


16/85


6

Californias

current

economic

and policy

context

presents bot

daunting

challenges

and new

opportunitie

for K-12educational

infrastructure

II. TheStateRoleinK-12Educational

InfrastructureandSustainableCommunities

CaliforniascurrenteconomicandpolicycontextpresentsbothdauntingchallengesandnewopportunitiesforK-12educationalinfrastructure.Inthissection,we

describethelong-standingstateinvolvementinregulatingandfundingpublicK-12

schoolfacilitiesandthenpointtoitsconnectionstothenewstatepolicyframework

aimedataligningallothersectorsofstatelevelinfrastructureinvestmenttowarda

commonsetofgoals,withaparticularfocusonsustainablecommunities.

CaliforniasK-12SchoolFacilitiesInfrastructureWith9,903publicschoolsservingits6.1millionstudents,Californiahasoneofthe

nationslargestinventoriesofpublicK-12schools.17

Themajority(85%or8,439)are

commonK-12schools,includingelementaryschools,middle/juniorhighschools,andhighschools.Californiaalsohas912publiccharterschoolsabout10%ofthetotal,

andgrowinginnumber.18

The8,439traditionalpublicschoolsrepresentanestimated

471milliongrosssquarefeetofbuildingspace,including303,399classrooms.19

The

CDEestimatesthat71%(215,017)ofclassroomsinthestatearemorethan25years

old.20

About30%ofthemareatleast50yearsoldandabout10%areatleast70

yearsold.21

About25%ofclassroomsaretemporaryportablebuildings.These

portablesnumberabout75,000+andabout2millionstudentsattendclassesin

them.22

Nostateagencyreportsinformationontheamountoflandownedbyschool

districts,butweestimateittobemorethan125,000acresoflandstatewide.23

Californiaspublicschoolsareoperatedandmanagedby1,042LEAs.

24Asinmoststates,the

day-to-dayresponsibilityfordeliveringeducational

servicesinCaliforniaisgiventoLEAs,whichare

governedbyelectedschoolboards.25

Asarecent

thoroughreviewofthegovernancestructureof

Californiaeducationnoted,

Althoughthestateholdsthelegalcardsinthe

sensethatithasconstitutionalauthoritytoorganize

thesystemasitwishes,theinitialorganicgrowthof

localschoolssystems,andsuspicionofcentralauthority,meantthatasignificantdegreeof

autonomywascededtolocalagents,school

districts.26

Inaschoolfacilitycapitalinvestmentplanningor

constructionendeavor,LEAsaretheleadagency,

notthestate.ThislocalcontrolandtheLEA

CaliforniaK-12SchoolFacilityFacts,January2012

Numberofstudents 6.1million

NumberofLEAs 1,042

Numberofschools 9,903

Numberofcharterschools 912

Totalgrosssquarefeet 471million

Numberofclassrooms 303,399Percentover25yearsold 71%

Percent50ormoreyearsold 30%

Percent70ormoreyearsold 10%

Numberofportableclassrooms 75,000+

TotalK-12acreage 125,000

Seesourcecitationsintex


17/85


7

autonomyenshrinedinCalifornialawisanimportantstructuralcontextinwhich

thestateK-12facilityprogramoperates;werefertothislocalcontrolthroughoutthe

report.Thus,thestateprogramassistsLEAs,whoarefullyresponsibleforprojects.

TheSchoolFacilityProgram,1998toPresentCaliforniasSchoolFacilityProgram(SFP)stemsfromalonghistoryofstatepolicyandfinancialsupportto

LEAsfortheirfacilities:in1927theCDEbegantoassist

LEAsincapitalplanning;theDivisionoftheState

Architect(DSA)waschargedwithenforcingbuilding

codestandardsaftertheLongBeachearthquakeof

1933;andin1947thestatebeganlimitedstatefacility

fundingsupportforLEAsandthelegislature

establishedtheStateAllocationBoard(SAB)tooversee

allocation.27

ThestatesfinancialsupporttoLEAsrampedupin

1976withtheLease-PurchaseProgram(LPP)and

continuestodayundertheSFP,whichwasestablished

in1998bySB50,theLeroyF.GreenSchoolFacilities

Act(seetheboxsummarizingthefourstatewide

schoolconstructionbondsthathavepassedsince1998

tofundtheSFP).Structuredasafundingpartnership

betweenLEAsandthestate,statefundsaremeantto

matchlocaldollars.(Localfundsaretypicallysome

combinationoflocalG.O.bondsanddeveloperfees.StatefundscomeintheformofstatewideG.Obonds.)

GuidedbythelegislationfromSB50,theSFPsets

eligibilityandfiscalstandardsandprovidesgrantfunds

onaproject-levelbasisforacquiringschoolsites,

constructingnewfacilities,andmodernizingexisting

facilities.Fundingisallocatedinperpupilgrantsthat

areproject-specific.Supplementalgrantsforsite

development,siteacquisition,andotherproject-

specificcostsarealsoawardedwhenwarranted.This

systemhasbeendescribedasopen-endedmatching

aidfromthestatestatefundsaremeanttomatchlocallyraiseddollarsandintheorythereisnotastrict

limitorcaponthetotalamountaprojectcan

receive.28

Thefundinglimitiscalculatedbyalocal

eligibilitydetermination.

Since1998,therehasbeen$35.4billioninstatebondfundsmadeavailabletoLEAs.

StatewideK-12SchoolConstructionBonds,

1998-2011

Total=$35.4billion

Prop1A,November1998$6.7Billion

NewConstruction $2,900,000,000

Modernization $2,100,000,000

Hardship $1,000,000,000

ClassSizeReduction $700,000,000

Prop47,November2002$11.4Billion



CriticallyOvercrowdedSchools $1,700,000,000

CharterSchools $100,000,000

JointUse $50,000,000

Prop55,March2004$10.0Billion


Modernization $2,250,000,000CriticallyOvercrowdedSchools $2,440,000,000

CharterSchool $300,000,000


Prop1D,November2006$7.33Billion



CareerTechnicalEducation$500,000,000

HighPerformanceSchools$100,000,000

OvercrowdingRelief $1,000,000,000

CharterSchools $500,000,000



18/85


8

About80%ofthesefundshavegonetowardtwoprograms:theNewConstruction

ProgramandtheModernizationProgram.29

Therestofthefundshavebeenusedfor

ninesmallerfundingprogramswithintheSFP:CareerTechnicalEducationFacilities

Program;CharterSchoolFacilities;CriticallyOvercrowdedSchoolsProgram;Facility

HardshipProgram;SeismicMitigationProgram;FinancialHardshipProgram;High

PerformanceIncentiveGrantProgram;Joint-UseProgram;andOvercrowdingRelief

GrantProgram.(Thereissomeoverlapoffundsbetweentheseprogramsandthe

NewConstructionProgramandModernizationProgram).Eachprogramhasitsown

eligibilityrequirements(seeAppendixAforprogramdescriptions).Afewother

smallerprogramsareadministeredbytheSAB,buttheseareseparatefromthemain

programs(includingtheDeferredMaintenanceProgram,theEmergencyRepair

Program,andthenow-phased-outStateRelocatableClassroomProgram).

Since1998,theNewConstructionProgramhashad$16.01billionmadeavailablefor

allocation.Theprogramprovidesstatefundsonafifty-fiftystate-localsharingbasis

foreligibleprojectsthataddcapacitytoanLEA.30

Addingcapacitycanincludetheconstructionofanewschoolortheadditionofclassroomstoanexistingschool.

Eligibilityisdeterminedatthedistrictlevel(althoughthereisanoptiontousehigh

schoolattendanceareasinsomecases)andisbasedonanLEAsprojectedneedto

housepupils,whichisdeterminedbythegapbetweenanLEAsprojectedenrollment

anditsexistingclassroomcapacity.Eligibilitytranslatesdirectlyinto

pupilgrants.Thepupilgrantisacompositedollarfigurethatprovides

thestatesshareforprojectcostsincludingdesign,construction,

testing,inspection,furnitureandequipment,andothercostsclosely

relatedtotheactualconstructionoftheschoolbuildings.Thepupil

grantamountissetinlawandadjustedannuallybytheSABbasedon

recentconstructioncosts.Supplementalgrantsaugmentpupilgrantfunding,

includingthoseforsiteacquisition,utilities,off-site,generalsitedevelopment,and

otherexcessivecosthardships.ToparticipateintheNewConstructionProgram,LEAs

mustfirstraisefundslocallytobeeligibleforthestatematch.

Since1998,theModernizationProgramhashad$10.95billionmade

availableforallocation.Theprogramprovidesstatefundsonasixty-

fortystate-localsharingbasisforeligibleimprovementsto

educationallyenhanceexistingschoolfacilities(suchasair

conditioning,plumbing,lighting,andelectricalsystems).Eligibilityfor

modernizationfundingisestablishedseparatelyforeachschoolsite(afundamentaldifferencefromtheNewConstructionProgram,

whichiscalculatedatthedistrictlevel).Eligibilitytranslatesdirectly

intopupilgrants,whichvarybystudentgradelevel.Tobeeligible,a

permanentbuildingmustbeatleast25yearsoldandarelocatable

buildingmustbeatleast20yearsold.Thefacilitymustnothavebeenpreviously

modernizedwithstatefunding.Thepupilgrantisacompositedollarfigurethat

providesthestatesshareforprojectcostsincludingdesign,construction,

Since1998,theNewConstruction

Programhashadabout$16billion

infundsauthorized,helpingtobuil

morethan1,000+schoolsand

additionsprojectsacrossthestate.

Since1998,theModernization

Programhasinvestedabout$11

billion.Consideringthereare471

millionsquarefeetofK-12facilities

acrossthestate,thisisanaveragestateinvestmentofabout$23per

grosssquarefoot,orabout$2.30

pergrosssquarefootperyear.


19/85


9

educationaltechnology,testing,inspection,furniture,andequipment.Thepupil

grantamountissetinlawandadjustedannuallybytheSABbasedonrecent

constructioncosts.Supplementalgrantsaugmentpupilgrantfunding.Forexample,

excessivecosthardshipgrantsareavailableforthecostsassociatedwithaccessibility

andfirecodeupgrades.ToparticipateintheModernizationProgram,LEAsmustraise

theadditionallyneededprojectfundslocally.

WiththesetwomainfundingprogramsoftheSFP,thevastmajorityofthefundsare

allocatedonafirst-come,first-servedbasis.LEAsassesstheireligibilitytoqualify

forstatefacilityfundsandthenbringtheirprojectsforwardforfundingapproval

(assumingtheymeetthevariousmandatedbuildingdesignandsitesafetystandards

asoutlinedinCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title514001-14030).LEAfunding

requestsareprocessedintheordertheyarereceived.Thereisessentiallynostate

prioritizationofprojectsintermsoftheirurgencyrelativetootherprojects

submittedorotherschoolsthroughoutthestate.Someoftheadditionalfunding

programsallocationdeterminationsoperateinamoreneeds-basedmanner,includingtheCriticallyOvercrowdedSchoolsProgram,CriticalHardshipcomponent

oftheDeferredMaintenanceProgram,EmergencyRepairProgram,FacilityHardship

Program,FinancialHardshipProgram,OvercrowdingReliefGrantProgram,and

SeismicMitigationProgram(seeAppendixAforprogramdescriptions).However,

togethertheseprogramsrepresentlessthan20%oftheSFPfundssince1998.

TheSABisresponsibleforallocatingstatefundsforK-12schoolfacilitiesbyreviewing

andapprovingapplicationsforeligibilityandfunding,actingonappeals,andadopting

policiesandregulationsfortheprogramsitadministers.31

TheOfficeofPublicSchool

Construction(OPSC)intheDepartmentofGeneralServices(DGS)servesasstaffto

theSABandisresponsibleforverifyingLEAeligibilityandensuringthatfundsare

allocatedproperlyandinaccordancewiththelawanddecisionsmadebytheSAB.

TheSABiscomprisedoftenmembers:theDirectoroftheDepartmentofFinanceor

designee(appointedbythegovernor,thispositionhasservedasthetraditionalSAB

chair);theDirectoroftheDepartmentofGeneralServicesordesignee(appointedby

thegovernor);theSSPIordesignee(SSPIisanelectedposition);oneperson

appointedbythegovernortositontheSAB;threeStateSenators,appointedbythe

SenateRulesCommittee(twofromthemajoritypartyandonefromtheminority

party);andthreeStateAssemblymembers;appointedbytheSpeakerofthe

Assembly(twofromthemajoritypartyandonefromtheminorityparty).

ThreeotherstateagenciesalsohavekeyrolesintheSFP:

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,SchoolFacilitiesandTransportationServicesDivision(SFTSD) reviewsandapprovesLEAsitesandconstructionplans.The

SFTSDreviewfocusesmainlyontheeducationaladequacyoftheproposedfacility

andwhetherornotstudentandfacultyneedsandsafetywillbemet.Review

standardsaresetforthinCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title5.


20/85


10

California has

made

significant

shifts toward

aligning

infrastructure

investmentsfor more

sustainablecommunities.

TheDepartmentofGeneralServices,DivisionoftheStateArchitect(DSA) reviewsschoolfacilityplansandspecificationstoensurethattheycomplywithCalifornias

buildingcodes,withanemphasisonstructuralandseismicsafetyinaccordancewith

theFieldAct.

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl(DTSC) reviewsLEAsenvironmentalhazardsassessmentofpotentialnewschoolsitesorexistingsites

plannedformajorexpansion.TheDTSCwill,ifnecessary,assistLEAswiththe

developmentandimplementationofamitigationplan.32

TheSABandthesethreestateagenciesoverseestate-mandatedfacilitystandards

andapprovalprocessesthatLEAsmustfollowtoaccessstatefunds.Additionally,the

SABestablishedtheImplementationCommitteeasaninformaladvisorybodyto

assistwithpolicyandlegislationimplementation.

Thestatesrolehasmostlyfocusedonsettingvariousfacilitiesstandardsand,when

available,providingconstructionandmodernizationfunding.Enshrinedinthe

currentSFPisahighleveloflocalcontrolbyLEAsforfacilitydecisionmakingand

investmentdecisions.LEAsareresponsibleforadheringtostateandlocalfirecodes,

otherlocalordinances,stateandfederalenvironmentalregulations,andforkeeping

facilitiescodecompliantovertime.LEAsarefiscallyindependentagencieswithtaxing

authoritytoraisecapitalfundsthroughapublicreferendumprocessoutlinedinstate

law.WhenSB50wentintoeffectin1998,LEAsweresomewhatmorerestrictedin

localbonding,havingtopassthembytwo-thirdsofvoters.In2000,thepassageof

Proposition39allowedLEAstopasslocalbondswitha55%voterapproval.Following

thischange,manymoreLEAlocalbondshavepassedthaninpreviousyears.Thenew

lawwasmeanttogiveLEAsincreasedabilitytoharnesslocalsupportforK-12

facilitiesfunding.

NewPrioritiesforStateInfrastructureInvestmentCaliforniahasmadesignificantshiftstowardaligningstate-levelinfrastructure

investmentsformoresustainablecommunities,bydevelopingplans,programs,

andpoliciestomeettheclimatechangegoalsoutlinedinAB32(CaliforniasGlobal

WarmingSolutionsActof2006)andsubsequentimplementationlegislation,

includingSB375(CaliforniasSustainableCommunitiesandClimateProtectionActof

2008).33

Theselegislativechangesplacesignificantnewconditionsontheoutcomes

ofstate-levelinfrastructureinvestmentandlocallandusedecisions.Aprimaryfocus

isonreducinggreenhousegas(GHG)emissions,particularlyfromvehiclemilestraveled(VMT).SB375isthefirstlawinthecountrytoattempttocontrolGHG

emissionsbylinkinglanduseandtransportationplanningthatcurbslow-density

automobile-centricdevelopment.

InSeptember2008,SB732establishedtheCaliforniaStrategicGrowthCouncil(SGC),

acabinetlevelcommitteetaskedwithcoordinatingtheactivitiesofmemberstate

agenciestoimproveairandwaterquality,protectnaturalresourcesandagriculture


21/85


11

lands,increasetheavailabilityofaffordablehousing,promotepublichealth

Improvetransportation,encouragegreaterinfillandcompactdevelopment,revitalize

communityandurbancenters,assiststateandlocalentitiesintheplanningof

sustainablecommunities,andmeetingAB32goals.AcentralroleoftheSGCisto

recommendpoliciesandfundeffortsthatareconsistentwiththestateplanning

prioritiesinGovernmentCode65041.1(establishedwith2002sAB857),whichare

intendedtopromoteequity,strengthentheeconomy,protecttheenvironment,and

promotepublichealthandsafetyinthestate,includinginurban,suburban,andrural

communities:

a) Topromoteinfilldevelopmentandequitybyrehabilitating,maintaining,and

improvingexistinginfrastructurethatsupportsinfilldevelopmentandappropriate

reuseandredevelopmentofpreviouslydeveloped,underutilizedlandthatispresently

servedbytransit,streets,water,sewer,andotheressentialservices,particularlyin

underservedareas,andtopreservingculturalandhistoricresources;

b) Toprotectenvironmentalandagriculturalresourcesbyprotecting,preserving,and

enhancingthestatesmostvaluablenaturalresources,includingworkinglandscapessuchasfarm,range,andforestlands,naturallandssuchaswetlands,watersheds,

wildlifehabitats,andotherwildlands,recreationlandssuchasparks,trails,greenbelts,

andotheropenspace,andlandscapeswithlocallyuniquefeaturesandareas

identifiedbythestateasdeservingspecialprotection;

c) Toencourageefficientdevelopmentpatternsbyensuringthatanyinfrastructure

associatedwithdevelopment,otherthaninfilldevelopment,supportsnew

developmentthatdoesallofthefollowing:(1)useslandefficiently;(2)isbuilt

adjacenttoexistingdevelopedareastotheextentconsistentwiththepriorities

specifiedpursuanttosubdivision(b);(3)islocatedinanareaappropriatelyplanned

forgrowth;(4)isservedbyadequatetransportationandotheressentialutilitiesand

services;and(5)minimizesongoingcoststotaxpayers.

Statepolicyleaderscontinuetograpplewithhowtoimplementtheplanning

priorities;thegeneralapproachappearstoofferincentivesforadheringtothem.

IncentivesmayincludeincreasedstatefundingforCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality

Act(CEQA)processstreamliningforparticularprojects,whichnowincludesschools

undertherecentlypassedSB226(Simitian,D-PaloAlto).Still,theplanningpriorities

establishaframeworkforoutcomegoalsassociatedwithinfrastructureinvestment.

Atpresent,SB375isoneofthewidestreachingimplementationvehicles.

TwomajoremphasesinSB375implementationhavebeenincentivizingplanning

collaborationamonglocalgovernmentsinthesameregionandreinvestmentandredevelopmentinexistingurbanandsuburbanareasthroughinfilldevelopmentand

infrastructureimprovement.Currently,Californias18MetropolitanPlanning

Organizations(MPO)aredevelopingSustainableCommunitiesStrategies(SCSs)as

partoftheirRegionalTransportationPlans(RTP).TheSCSswillcontain25-year

forecaststomeettheGHGtargetsestablishedbytheAirResourcesBoard(ARB)

throughlanduseandtransportationplans.34


22/85


12

EvidenceofConvergingInterests:RecentStepsToward

AligningEducationalandCommunityInfrastructure

InvestmentsK-12facilitiesarebyfaroneofthestateslargestinfrastructureinvestments,making

up35%ofallthestateG.O.bondsbetween1972and2006(therehasnotbeena

statewideK-12infrastructurebondsince2006).35

Thislevelofspendingis

understandableconsideringthataboutone-sixthofCaliforniaspopulationspends

theirdayinpublicschoolbuildings.Additionally,Californiaschooldistrictsarecalled

ontomakethisextensiveinfrastructureavailabletoothersforcommunityuseandas

emergencyshelters.36

FlowingfromthesignificantextentofthestatesfundingovertimeforK-12facilities,

weoutlinebelowthegrowinginterestamongstatepolicyleaderstobetterconnect

state-levelsustainablecommunitiesgoalsandstate-levelK-12facilitiesinvestments.Numerouspolicyactivitiesfromdifferentstatepolicyvenuesillustratetheinterest

forpolicy,regulatory,andfundingintegration.

CaliforniaDepartmentofEducationandtheStateSuperintendentofPublic

Instruction

In2011,StateSuperintendentTomTorlaksonconvenedthe SchoolsoftheFutureTaskForceonschoolfacilitypolicyandfundingreforms.TheTaskforcedeveloped

recommendationonmultipletopics,including:funding,governance,schoolsiting,

modernization,andincorporationofenergyefficiencyandgreentechnologies.37

In2011,SuperintendentTorlaksonalsoreleased ABlueprintforGreatSchools,whichdocumentedrecommendationsfroma59-memberTransitionAdvisoryTeam

taskedtoprovideinnovativeandstrategicadviceforthedevelopmentofanew

missionandplanningframeworkfortheCDE.Schoolfacility/constructionreformwas

oneofeightkeyissuesexplored.Therecommendationsincludedbettercoordination

ofstateSFPagencies;aninventoryofschoolfacilities;moreenergyefficient

facilities;improvedprocurementprocesses;andmorejointuseagreements.38

In2008,CDEconvenedstatewideeducationalstakeholdersforatwo-daypolicysummit,Re-VisioningSchoolFacilityPlanningandDesignforthe21stCentury:

CreatingOptimalLearningEnvironments ,tocraftrecommendationsformore

optimalschoolfacilitiesthatsupportstudentachievement.Thesummits

recommendationsincluded:establishastatevisionandguidingprinciplesontherole

ofschoolfacilitiesinsupportingstudentachievementandclosingtheachievementgap;incorporatethenewvisionandprinciplesintotheCaliforniaCodeof

Regulations,Title5;increasecollaborationamongstateagenciestoaidLEAsinthe

designof21stcenturylearningenvironments;increasestatefocusonstandardsand

policygoverningthemodernizationofexistingschoolstoprovide21stcentury

learningenvironmentsforthegreatestnumberofstudents;andreviewand

restructurethelinkagebetweenschoolfacilityfinanceanddesign.Followingthe

summit,theCDEdevelopedavisionandguidingprinciplesforCaliforniaspublic


23/85


13

schoolfacilities(seetextbox).39

In2008,then-StateSuperintendentofPublicInstructionJackOConnellreleasedClosingtheAchievementGap:ReportoftheP-16Council .Thereporthighlightsthe

workcompletedbytheCaliforniaP-16(pre-kindergartenthroughhighereducation)

Councilconvenedtodevelop,implement,andsustainaspecific,ambitiousplanthat

holdstheStateofCaliforniaaccountableforcreatingtheconditionsnecessaryfor

closingtheachievementgap.40

CDEs2006reportHealthyChildrenReadyToLearn:FacilitiesBestPractices drawsfromagrowingbodyofevidenceshowingthatgoodhealthsupportsimproved

studentperformance.Thereportmadeseveralschoolenvironmentandfacilities

recommendations,includingmakingsureschoolshavethekitchenfacilitiesto

providehealthyfood,makingsurethereareampleandadequateindoorand

outdoorphysicalactivityspacesonschoolcampuses,andmakingschoolsavailable

forcommunityuse(jointuse)andphysicalactivitybeforeandafterschoolandon

theweekends.41

CDEsVisionandGuidingPrinciplesforCaliforniaPublicSchoolFacilities

VisionTheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationenvisionsschoolfacilitiesthatenhancetheachievementofallstudentsand

arelearner-centered,safe,sustainable,andcentersofthecommunity.

GuidingPrinciplesforImplementingtheVision

Thesitinganddesignofeducationalfacilitieswill:

1) ReflecttheLocalEducationalAgencysboard-adoptedfacilitiesmasterplanandeducationalspecifications.

2) Resultfromanopen,community-based,andcomprehensiveplanningprocessincludingallstakeholdersand

earlydialoguewithallinvolvedplanningagencies.3) Accommodateacompletefacilitysupportingthedeliveryoftheadoptededucationalprogram,beaccessible

toall,andadaptabletofuturedemographic,educational,andcommunityneeds.

4) Supportstudents,parents,teachers,andstaffinclosingachievementgaps,andpreparingstudentsforthe

workforce,post-secondaryeducation,andlifelonglearning.

5) Considerthefullspectrumofcommunityfacilitiesandsupportopportunitiesforjoint-useandeducational

partnerships.

6) Ensuresafetyfromexistingandpotentialhazardsandincompatiblelanduses.

7) Provideasecureenvironmentwithafocusonsupervision.

8) Createcomfortable,attractive,andstimulatingenvironmentsthatsupportcollaborationanddiverselearning

stylesandopportunities.

9) Promotesustainablepracticesthatconservenaturalresources,limitgreenhousegasemissions,optimize

constructionandlifecyclecosts,andencouragewalkingandbicycling.

10) Incorporatesuperioracoustics,indoor-airquality,andnaturallighting.

11) Respondtocurrentandfutureinformation,communication,andtechnologyneeds.

12) Supportstudenthealth,nutrition,andphysicalfitness.

Source:http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/re


24/85


14

StrategicGrowthCouncilandtheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth InDecember2010,theStrategicGrowthCouncils HealthinAllPoliciesTaskForce

releaseditsreport,whichdefinedhealthasacorecomponentofsustainable

communitiesanddetailedrecommendationsforstateagenciestopromotehealth.

LedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth,thetaskforceincluded19state

agencies,offices,anddepartments,includingtheDepartmentofEducation.Thereportnotesthat,[t]hehealthofCaliforniaspopulationislargelydeterminedby

thesocial,physical,economic,andserviceenvironmentsinwhichpeoplelive,work,

study,andplay.Theseenvironmentsshapethechoicesthatpeoplemakeeveryday,

aswellastheiropportunitiesandresourcesforhealth.Peopleindisadvantaged

communitiesoftenhavefewerresourcesforhealth,whichisreflectedinsignificantly

worsehealthoutcomes.Thereportofferednumerousrecommendations,including

expandingjointuseopportunitiesforphysicalactivityandensuringactivewalking

andbicyclingtoschooloptionsforchildrenandfamilies.42

CaliforniaStateLegislature

Inthe2011legislativesession,threebillsinparticularaboutK-12schoolfacilitiesareworthnoting.Althoughthesebillsdidnotadvanceoutofcommittees,theyillustrate

areasoflegislativeinterest.AB220(Sen.Brownley,D-SantaMonica)proposeda

statewidenewconstructionandmodernizationbondfortheNovember2012ballot.

SB788(Lowenthal,D-LongBeach),holdsaplaceforpotentialfuturelanguageaimed

atanadministrativerestructureoftheSchoolFacilitiesProgram.Thethird,SB132

(Lowenthal,D-LongBeach)proposedthattheSABandtheCDEcoordinatetomake

suretheirpoliciesandproceduresforapprovingLEAfacilityprojectssupportthe

goalsoutlinedinthestateplanninggoals.

In2009,theSenateSelectCommitteeonStateSchoolFacilities heldtwoinformationalhearings:K-12SchoolFacilityConstruction:DevelopingaVisionfor

CaliforniasInfrastructureInvestment(July14)andSchoolsasCentersofSustainableCommunities:AVisionforFutureSchoolFacilityConstruction

(December15).PresentationsweremadebyLEAsuperintendentsandfacility

directors,architects,researchers,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,anda

directorfromametropolitanplanningorganization(MPO).Acentralissuesdiscussed

wastheneedtoalignschoolfacilitiesplanningandinvestmentwithbothschooland

communityimprovement.In2010,theselectcommitteewaschangedtothe Senate

EducationalSubcommitteeonSustainableSchoolFacilities ,whichheldajoint

hearingwiththeAssemblyEducationCommitteeinNovember2011.43

TheseactivitiesareevidenceofmomentumforlinkingK-12educationand

sustainablecommunitiesinCalifornia.Thereappeartobemanycomplementary

synergiesbetweensustainablecommunitiespriorities,theneedsofschoolfacilities

acrossthestate,andtheeducationalimprovementeffortsoftheCDEandLEAs.For

example,manyolderschoolsinexistingcommunitiesareindireneedofrepair,

renovation,andtechnologyupgrades.Manyoftheseschoolsareintheveryplaces

SB375andtheregionalSCSsaretargetingfordevelopmentandpopulationgrowth.

Theyarealsooftentheschoolsthatmanylow-incomeand/orminoritystudents

attend,andthesekindsoffacilityupgradeswouldreinforceeffortstoclosethe


25/85


15

There appeato be many

synergies

between

sustainable

communities

priorities and

the needs of

school

facilities

across thestate.

achievementgap.Sustainablecommunitieseffortsgenerallyaimforincreasedland

developmentdensity,whichmeanscommunityreinvestmentandinfillgrowthin

existingneighborhoodswillbeapriority.CurrentK-12enrollmentprojectionsalso

pointtosynergiesbetweenschoolfacilityneedsandsustainablecommunities.Itis

likelythattherewillbefewernewschoolsneededinoutersuburbanareasofthe

majormetropolitanregionscomparedtothepreviousdecade.Therewillalsolikely

begrowthintheCentralValley,creatingopportunitiesfornewdevelopment.

Additionally,manyoftheeducationalinnovationsbeingimplementedinschools

acrossCaliforniarequirefacilitieschangestosupportthem.Theseincludeincreased

project-basedlearningactivities,widerimplementationofCareerTechnical

Education(CTE)andothermultiplepathways,increasedcommunityinvolvementin

schools,creatingmoreintimatelearningexperiences,(includingsmallschoolsand

smalllearningcommunities),expandingthenumberofthemedschools,moreoff-

campusstudentapprenticeships,andmorepubliccharterschools(manyofwhom

operateinspacesnotoriginallydesignedasschools).44

Alloftheseinnovationssupportthegeneralfeelingamongmanyeducatorsthatconcentratingstudentsinto

largerschoolplantsandusingafactorymodeldoesnotengagestudentswell

today.45

Manyoftheeducationaleffortsnotedaboverequirerethinkingthe

traditionalnotionofaclassroomandrealizingthatlearningexperiencescan

happenanywhere.Therefore,theconceptofaclassroomshouldbeexpandedto

includeinternetresourcesandotheremergingtechnologiessuchasvirtual

classroomsandgreaterconnectivitywiththecommunityoutsidetheschoolwalls.

Thesecanbeusefulinprovidingopportunitiesforstudentstolearnaboutcivicroles

andpotentialcareerpaths.Also,puttingschoolsinnontraditionalbuildings,sharing

facilitiesthroughjointuse,andexpandingstudentaccesstothecommunityfor

learningactivitiescouldrequireschooldesignsthathelpadvanceurban

revitalization,infilldevelopment,andothersustainablecommunitiesgoals.

State-levelinvestmentinK-12schoolfacilitiesshouldpromotethesynergiesbetween

educationalneedsandsustainablecommunities.AsCaliforniainvestigateshowto

alignallofitsinfrastructurespending,K-12fundsshouldbeapartofthatstrategic

discussionapointalsomadebythe2010LittleHooverCommissionreportBuilding

California:InfrastructureChoicesandStrategy.Thereportalsostates:

Providingqualityinfrastructureinchallengingtimesandcapitalizingonpotentialopportunities

requiresstrategicthinking,integratedplanning,andlong-termgoalsettingthatcapitalizeson

Californiasexistingassetsandstrengths,bothpublicandprivate.Todate,thiskindof

coordinatedplanningandpriority-settingisnotbeingdoneonastatewide,cross-sectorlevel

withfullinputfromallstakeholdersandwithopennesstoinnovationinhowinfrastructureis

funded,financed,delivered,andmanaged,thoughmanyofthepiecesexist.46


26/85


16

III. Findings:BarrierstoK-12Infrastructure

Alignment

Inourresearch,wedevelopedaframeworkforassessingthestrategyandeffectivenessofstateK-12schoolinfrastructureprograms.Theframeworkhasfour

elementsplanningmanagement,funding,andaccountabilityandwascreated

fromanintensivescanofschoolfacilitiesliteratureandstakeholderinterviews.

Althoughveryfewacademicresourcesexistbestpracticesinstate-levelK-12

infrastructurebestpractices,wefoundthreepiecesfromprominentpolicysources

thatprovideddirectionforthinkingaboutCaliforniasSFP(seeAppendixBfor

detaileddescriptions).47

WeutilizetheframeworktoassessCaliforniasK-12

infrastructureinvestmentandidentifybarriersandchallengestotheprovisionof

high-qualityschoolfacilitiesandaligningofinfrastructureinvestment.

PlanningChallenges

CaliforniasK-12infrastructuredemandsdifferfromthoseofadecadeagoTheSFPwasestablishedatatimewhenenrollments(hadbeenand)wererising,and

LEAsacrossthestateneededtobuildnewschoolstokeepup.CaliforniaspublicK-12

enrollmentincreasedbynearly20%between1995andthelate2000s.Notonlywere

manynewschoolsneededforgrowingsuburbs,butnewschoolswerealsoneededin

manyurbanandoldersuburbanareasthatsawsevereschoolovercrowding.

AccordingtodataprovidedbyCDE,since2003about622newschoolshavebeen

approvedthroughoutthestate;thisisanaverageofslightlylessthan100schoolsper

year.Thus,theSFPanditsfundingprioritieswerearguablyrightlydesignedto

supportthepopulationandhousingboomthestatewasexperiencingin1998when

theprogramwasestablished.Thestrongeconomyandrapidgrowthweredrivingthe

demandandprovidingrevenuesforschoolconstruction.

Butin2012,thestatefindsitselfinasignificantlydifferentsituationrelativeto

populationgrowth,economicstrength,andenrollmenttrendsthanitdidin1998.

Overallpopulationgrowthwillcontinue,butitwilllikelyslowsomewhatfromrecent

years.Liketherestofthecountry,Californiaisexperiencingarecessionwitha

substantialhousingmarketslowdown.Notonlyisthereanoverallhousingmarket

slowdown,butanewstatewidestudyofCaliforniashousingmarkettrendsfromthe

UrbanLandInstitute(ULI)findsthatthemarketdemandforhousingisexpectedtobemuchdifferentthanitwasoverthepastdecadesandtheexistingsupplyof

conventional-lotsingle-familydetachedhomesexceedstheprojecteddemandfor

thesehomesin2035.Thereportfindsthattheselong-termmarkettrendsrepresent

adirectionalalignmentbetweentherealestatepreferencesexpressedbyconsumers

andthegreenhousegasreductionobjectivesexpressedbythestateofCaliforniain

theformofSB375.48


27/85


17

TheseshiftsinpopulationgrowthandhousingdemandwillhaveimplicationsforK-12

infrastructure.Intandemwiththeeconomicdownturnandslowerpopulation

growth,statewideK-12enrollmentprojectionshaveleveledoffrelativetothoseover

thelastdecade.TheDepartmentofFinanceprojectsastatewidenetenrollment

increaseofonly1.8%between2011-2012and2020-2021(105,000students).49

While

343,000newstudentsareprojected,someLEAsareexpectedtodropinenrollment.

ThefindingsfromtheULIstudynotedabovesuggestthatdemandfornewschoolsin

theoutersuburbswilllikelydropofffromlevelsofthepastdecade.

CurrentK-12facilityneedsfallintoavarietyofcategories,including:deferred

maintenance,seismicimprovements,capitalrenewals,modernization,andnew

construction.Unfortunately,thestatedoesnothaveaninventoryofK-12facilitiesor

asolidassessmentofstatewideK-12capitalinvestmentneeds.Butanumberof

differentsourceshelppaintthepicture.TheCDEsmostrecentestimate(August

2009)ofthestateshareofstatewidenewconstructionandmodernizationis$11.3

billion.50

ButthisislikelyasubstantialunderestimatebecauseitisbasedonlyonSFPeligibilitydocumentsonfilewiththeOPSCasofAugust2009andprojectsforwhich

onlyadesignapportionmenthadbeenmadeatthetime.

CalifornialacksclearlydefinedK-12infrastructureinvestmentprioritiesThelackofvisionguidingallsectorsofstateinfrastructureinvestmentisCalifornias

biggestinfrastructurechallenge,andK-12educationinfrastructureisnotimmune.51

Havingstrategic,programmatic,andcapitalinvestmentprioritieswillenhance

infrastructureoutcomesandperformance.

EstablishingthestatesroleinfundingK-12schoolfacilitiesin1947,thestate

legislaturesettheframeworkforitsK-12facilitypolicytrajectory.EducationCode15700(whichcreatedthe1947program)states(emphasisadded):

TheLegislatureherebydeclaresthatitisintheinterestofthestateandofthepeople

thereofforthestatetoaidschooldistrictsofthestateinprovidingnecessaryand

adequateschoolsitesandbuildingsforthepupilsofthepublicschoolsystem,the

systembeingamatterofgeneralconcerninasmuchastheeducationofthechildrenof

thestateisanobligationandfunctionofthestate.

Inadoptingthisact,theLegislatureconsidersthatthegreatneedinschool

constructionisforadequateclassroomsfortheeducationofthepupilsofthepublic

schoolsystem.ItistheintentoftheLegislaturetofirstsatisfythisprimaryneedto

thegreatestextentpossiblebeforeprovidingadditionaleducationalfacilities,

regardlessofhowdesirablesuchadditionalfacilitiesmaybe.Totheendthatschool

classroomsmaybemadeavailableatonceandtoallschooldistrictsinneedofsuch

classrooms,provisionsforotherneededschoolfacilitiesisnecessarilysubordinated.


28/85


18

EducationCode15704furtherstates(emphasisadded):

Theboardbytheadoptionofrulesshallgivepriorityinallocatingfundstodistrictsto

thosedistrictswherethechildrenwillbenefitmostfromadditionalschoolhouse

facilities.Thispriorityshallbebasedonacutenessofovercrowding,onsudden

growthinattendance,onamountoflocaltaxfundsexpendedforhousingofacharacterwithinthepurposesofthischapter,andonthetimethedistricts

applicationhasbeenreadyforallotment.Theboardmaymakeexceptionswhenit

determinesthatitwillbeforthebenefitofthechildrenaffected.

Withtheselaws,thelegislatureestablishedastate-levelcommitmenttosupport

schoolfacilitiesprovisionandlistedsomeprioritiesfordoingso;howevertheorder

ofprioritizationislessthanclear.Forexample,EducationCode15700appearsto

placetheupkeepofexistingschoolsaheadofnewconstruction,whileEducation

Code15704specifiesprioritiessuchasovercrowdingandaddressinggrowthbut

doesnotmentionexistingschoolsspecifically.Manyofthoseinterviewedforthis

studyfeltthat1998sSB50establishedandcodifiedsomelegislativeintents,suchasthegoalsofefficiencyintheprogramandmaintaininglocalcontrol.Butthebilland

theSFPcurrentlylackclarityonthestatesfundingprioritiesparticularlywithinthe

twomainprograms,NewConstructionandModernization.Forthemostpart,these

programsawardfundsonafirst-come,first-servedbasisandplacenoother

prioritizationontheuseofstatedollars.

CaliforniassustainablecommunitiespoliciesexcludeK-12infrastructureArecentreportpublishedbytheNationalResourcesDefenseCouncilandthe

CaliforniaLeagueofConservationVotersnoted,[w]hereweliveandhowwegetto

work,goaboutourdailybusiness,andtakeourkidstoschoolmattersagreatdealin

thefightagainstclimatechange.52Whileschoolandcommunityinfrastructure

clearlyimpactoneanother,schools,LEAs,andtheSFPhavebeenvirtuallyleftoutof

Californiasstatepolicyframeworkonsustainablecommunitiesplanning.For

instance,atthestateplanninglevel,thereisnoK-12infrastructureinvestment

representationontheStrategicGrowthCouncil,thebodycreatedtocoordinate

statewideinfrastructureinvestmentaroundacommonsetofgoals.ConsideringK-12

schoolfacilitiesfundinghasconsistentlybeenabouttwo-thirdsoftotalstatewide

G.O.bondssincetheearly1970s,thisisaglaringstateleveldisconnect.

Whilesubstantialeffortsareunderwaytobetteralignthestatesdisjointed

infrastructureinvestmentacrossallsectors,K-12schoolfacilitiesremainoutsidetheseefforts.Tworecentmajorstatereportsoninfrastructureinvestment(2008s

StatewideInfrastructurePlanand2010sLittleHooverReport)bothnotestate-level

K-12spendinganditsconnectiontosupportingotherstategoals,butneitherreport

focusesmuchatallonK-12infrastructureinitsrecommendations.Howeverasnoted

earlier,thereareabout1,000LEAsthroughwhichK-12facilitydollarsarefunneled

andaligningtheseinvestmentswilllikelytakestatelegislativeandregulatoryaction.


29/85


19

StatepoliciesisolateLEAsfromsustainablecommunitiesplanningatthe

local/regionallevel.TheSFPisexemptfrommeetingthestateplanningpriorities

establishedthroughthepassageofAB857andLEAsgenerallydonotparticipatein

theregionallanduseandtransportationplanningcoordination(e.g.,Sustainable

CommunitiesStrategies)mandatedbySB375.53

Someofourintervieweesnotedthat

toooftentheyseeexamplesofschoolfacilitiesplansandcommunity/regionalplans

thatworkatcross-purposes.Forexample,newschoolsiteschoseninareasthatdo

notalsoincludeplanningforadjacentdevelopmentandtheissueofschoolclosures

inneighborhoodsplannedforinfillhousingdevelopmentbothaffectland

developmentandhouseholdtravelpatterns,twoofSB375skeyelements.

TheSchoolFacilityProgramhaslittleauthorityoversustainablecommunities

outcomesTheSFPanditsparticipatingstateagencieshavelittlepolicyorregulatoryauthority

oversustainablecommunitiesoutcomesofK-12schoolfacilitiesplanningdecisions.

Thestandards,especiallythoseinTitle5,aredesignedforeducationastheyshouldbe.However,theyshouldbecraftedtobothsupporteducationandcomplement

broadersustainabilitygoals.Or,atleast,notundermineorconflictwiththem.

Onthesurface,numerouselementsofCaliforniascodesandtheregulationswithin

theSFPappearconsistentwithcommonsustainablecommunitiesoutcomes.For

example,fornewschoolsites,Title5statesthatLEAs:1)arerequiredtopreparean

environmentalimpactreportornegativedeclarationincompliancewithCEQA;2)

shallshowhowthesiteisappropriateinsizeasjustifiedbytheLEAsfacilitymaster

plan;3)shallchoosesitestopromotejointuseofparksandotherpublicservices;and

4)shallsiteschoolswithinproposedattendanceareatoencouragestudentwalking

andavoidexcessbusing.LEAsarealsorequiredtocertifycompliancewithCDE

verificationbycheckingoffprojectattributesonapprovalforms(suchasCDEs

SchoolSiteReport4.02)alongwiththeotherstudenthealthandsafetyrequirements

foundinTitle5andtheEducationCode.54

Title5ssiteapprovalprocessismostheavilyfocusedontheimportanthealthand

safetycriteriaandnotthoserelatingmoredirectlytosustainablecommunities

outcomes(suchaswalkability,jointuse,andminimizingexcessbussing).Rightly,a

projectcannotgetapprovaluntilitmeetsthehealthandsafetystandards.But

projectsregularlygetapprovalwithoutshowingtheymeetthesustainable

communitiesrelatedcriteria.Themainreasonforthisappearstobethatthestatecodelanguageiswordedsoftlyontheselatteritems,andsotheenforcementis

equallysoft.Ontheotherhand,thehealthandsafetycriteriatendtohavemore

specificstandards(and/orperformance-basedmeasures)againstwhichamore

objectiveassessmentcanbemade.Assuch,Title5hasastrongsystemforevaluating

newschoolsitechoicestomeethealthandsafetystandardsbutnotforevaluating

thesustainablecommunitiesoutcomesassociatedwithaparticularsitechoice.Thus,


30/85


20

thecodeandregulationsdonotnecessarilyconflictwithsustainablecommunities

goals,buttheyfallfarshortoffullycomplementingthem.

Twofrequentlycitedconcernsbyintervieweesworkingonsustainablecommunities

issueswereperceptionsthattheSFPandLEAcapitalplanningprocess:1)doesnot

prioritizethemodernization/expansionofexistingschoolsinolderneighborhoods

(especiallywhenlocal/regionalgovernmentshaveidentifiedthoseareasforinfillor

relateddevelopment),and2)promotesnewschoolsitesonsuburbanfringe

locationsthatareeithernotsitedadjacenttoexistingorplanneddevelopment

and/orareonlyaccessiblebyautomobile.Regardingtheformer,theconcernisthat

inordertoenticeandsupportdevelopmentinolderneighborhoods,high-quality

schoolswithcapacitymustbelocatedthere.Onthelatter,theconcernisthat

remotenewschoolsitesleadtoincreasedtraveltoschoolbycarorbusratherthan

bywalkingorbicycling,workingagainstthemandatedregionalGHGemission

reductiontargets.Forexample,theunadopted2003GovernorsEnvironmentalGoals

andPolicyReportstates,Thelocationofnewschoolshasanimportantinfluenceonlanduse,butsitingdecisionsarenotalwaysmadeincooperationwithlocalland

useplanningagencies.Thisisoneofthemostvolatileandtroublesomeproblemsin

Californialanduseplanning.55

LEAsoftennotethattherearefew,ifany,alternative

sitesavailablethatmeetstatestandardsorareaffordable.Theyalsoclaimthatlocal

governmentsanddevelopersseldomsetasidelandforschoolsitesinmoreamenable

locations.Urbansitesinparticularmayhaveenvironmentalissuesassociatedwith

toxins,powerlines,andtraffic,thatLEAseitheravoidbecauseofcostissuesand

safetyconcernsorbecausetheydonotmeettheTitle5standards.Also,schoolsare

sometimesseenascompetingwithcommerciallandusesandtheirpropertytax

potentialsinurbancores.Toensurethepropertytaxcapture,LEAsandmunicipalities

havebeenknowntojoinforcestodevelopnewsitesinthesuburbsinstead.

Akeyreasonbehindthelackofstrongsustainablecommunitiesenforcement

linkagescitedbyintervieweesisthatthestatecodesprovidestateagencieswithlittle

discretionarypowerforprojects.SB50,infact,madeK-12infrastructurefunding

nondiscretionary.Atensionremainsbetweenthebenefitsofmovingtowarda

nondiscretionarysystemandallowingstateagenciestoassesstheperformanceof

projectoutcomesmoresubjectively,yetwithintheparametersofthelaw.

CEQAanditsrequirementsforLEAshasbeentheprimaryvehiclelinkingschool

infrastructureinvestmentswithlanduseandbroaderenvironmentalimpacts.AssetforthinthePublicResourcesCode,LEAsmustgothroughtheCEQAprocesswhen

buildingnewschoolsonnewsites.Modernizationofexistingschoolsisgenerally

exemptfromCEQA,butwhenaprojectisnotexempt,theLEAmustdoaself-

assessmenttodeterminetheextentofpotentialenvironmentalimpacts.Fromthere,

anegativedeclaration,amitigatednegativedeclaration,oranenvironmental

impactreportisproduced,dependingontheissuesidentified.ChangestoCEQAin

thecontextofsupportingSB375arecurrentlybeingdevelopedbytheGovernors


31/85


21

OfficeofPlanningandResearch(OPR).ThepassageofSB226in2011directedthe

statetodevelopoptionsforthestreamliningofCEQArequirements,includingthose

forschooldistricts.56

Policyandregulatoryguidanceforlocalintergovernmentalplanningis

insufficient

Typically,theinfrastructureplanningworkofLEAsandotherlocal/regional

governmentsrarelyintersects,eventhoughschoolqualityandcommunityqualityare

closelyconnected.Theseentitiestendtocollaborateinfrequentl

california’s k-12 educational infrastructure needs

Documents