School Facility Investments in the Washington Metropolitan Area

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Abstract

Despite evidence that the quality of a school building affects student academic performance, most public schools in Washington, D.C.; Maryland; and Virginia are in poor physical condition. This brief analyzes patterns of investment for public school construction in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from 1995 to 2004. The greatest investment was for new school construction in the outlying suburbs. Spending increased over time throughout the region, led by large increases in renovation construction expenditures within the District of Columbia. Schools with high proportions of minority and low-income students received less investment on average.

Executive Summary

The quality of a school building plays a critical role in student academic achievement as well as teacher retention (Schneider 2002; Buckley, Schneider, and Yi 2004a). Yet, the majority of U.S. public schools are in poor physical condition, and nearly one-quarter are overcrowded, pressuring school systems to invest in both improving existing facilities and adding new facilities to accommodate growing student enrollments (GAO 1996; Lewis et al. 2000). Regional population growth mandates new school construction, while the condition of central-city schools and schools serving minority and low-income students creates the greatest need for upgrade and repair (GAO 1996).

This brief analyzes patterns of investment for public school construction in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from 1995 to 2004. It considers the geographic distribution of investments, the allocation of resources for new construction versus renovation, changes in spending over time, and differences in investment for schools with differing student income levels and differing racial/ethnic compositions.

The most substantial outlays across the region were for new school construction in the burgeoning outlying suburbs, where rapidly growing student enrollment mandated an expansion of school capacity. Spending in the District of Columbia and the suburbs immediately surrounding the District was directed more toward school renovation. School construction investment increased over time throughout the region, with the most dramatic increase occurring within the District, which in 2000 began the widespread renovation of old schools.

Both population growth pressures and the need to improve aging schools influenced spending patterns across the Washington metropolitan area. However, local policy priorities and budget constraints also shape decisions about where to invest, helping to explain wide disparities in school construction spending across jurisdictions. From 1995 to 1999, investment in schools where more than 40 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch was below the regional average. However, starting in 2000, spending at schools where more than 75 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch increased sharply, largely reflecting increased expenditures within the District of Columbia. Construction was also below average for schools attended primarily by minority students (less than 15 percent white) and for schools where African-Americans are the dominant minority group, though these schools also saw small increases in investment over time. Schools with racially and ethnically diverse or a majority white student population garnered the greatest school construction resources.

Unfortunately, data are not available to directly assess the extent to which school construction investments addressed problems of poor facility quality. However, the disparities in construction spending across the region are consistent with national studies showing that during the 1990s, schools serving high proportions of low-income and minority students were more likely to have inadequate facilities (GAO 1996). Furthermore, despite increased spending in the District of Columbia, as recently as 2002 more than 40 percent of teachers in the D.C. public school system rated their school facilities as educationally inadequate (Buckley, Schneider, and Yi 2004b).

(End of excerpt. The complete report is available in PDF format.)

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.