----

##  Effects of State Policies on Facilities Planning and Construction in            Rural Districts. ERIC Digest.                                                

Rural districts face challenges in maintaining, renovating, and                 building school facilities. Policies governing this work can greatly            affect funding, the size and location of school facilities, and                 interaction between schools and communities. Administrators, school             boards, and communities considering facilities projects should                  review local and state policies to identify areas of flexibility and            explore their options (Lawrence, 2002a). This Digest identifies                 significant facilities policies and ways they can affect rural                  schools and communities. CONDITION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES IN RURAL              AREASLimited information is available on the condition of school            facilities, and existing studies, though often quoted, are                      problematic. Some are now outdated and were based on data collected             in ways that hindered comparisons (e.g., GAO, 1995, 1996). Others,              though more recent, were based on data from a very small                        sample (Lewis et al., 2000); used estimated data for some states,               not differentiating among urban, suburban, and rural districts (NEA,            2000); or as with American School and University's annual reports on            maintenance and construction (Agron, 2001a, 2001b), grouped states              by region, blurring the characteristics of rural, urban, and                    suburban schools. 
That said, a review of existing reports suggests            that schools in rural areas and small towns are in only slightly                better condition than urban schools and that local economies affect             their condition. In 1996 the GAO found that 51.7% of rural schools              had at least one inadequate building feature. NCES reported that                staff from 78% of rural schools expressed the need to spend money on            repairs, renovations, and modernization. Rural schools were also                more likely to report at least one environmental condition as                   unsatisfactory (Lewis et al., 2000, v, 17-18). STATE AND FEDERAL              FUNDING MECHANISMSState mechanisms for funding school facilities            vary. Only two states (AZ & HI) fund 100% of school facilities                  projects at the state level. Eleven states offer no direct funding,             while the remaining states fund through a variety of channels: flat             grants, per pupil allocations, sliding scale grants or loans based              on property wealth, or a basic needs formula. Some (e.g., SC) use               several funding programs to give districts different ways to                    qualify. 
In most states, the district is primarily responsible for            funding facilities. The usual methods of raising money (property                tax, bonds, lotteries, and federal leases) can have consequences for            rural districts. For example, Georgia permits use of a local sales              tax, but this option raises little revenue in those districts with              few businesses (ECS, 1995). 
In states that assign districts full              funding responsibility, poor rural districts face daunting                      challenges. It is no coincidence that rural districts have taken a              leading role in filing equity and adequacy suits based, in part, on             the declining condition of school facilities (cf. AK, AZ, CO, NC,               OH, WV). 
Six states (AZ, DE, KY, NC, OH, WV) have separate                    centralized school facilities authorities. Most states, however,                distribute funds through offices within their departments of                    education (Clarke, 2000). Though state officials may be eager to                help rural communities, their ability to do so can be curtailed by              state policy. For example, when the North Carolina legislature cut              staffing in the state facilities office by about 50%, some urban                districts with larger staffs were able to apply for funding more                aggressively than their rural neighbors, who had relied on the state            office for assistance. 
Limited federal funding is available for               new school facilities, largely from the Department of Agriculture's             Office of Community Development and the Rural Economic Area                     Partnership. Two small Department of Education programs--the                    Emergency Repair and Renovation Grants and Qualified Zone Academy               Bonds (QZAB)--help fund renovations. Both programs base their                   assistance on the number of students eligible for free or reduced               lunch (see "Other Resources" at the end of this Digest). Although               the Emergency Repair and Renovation program assures that rural                  districts receive a fair share of funds, QZAB funding in some states            has gone disproportionately to urban districts. STATE POLICIES                IMPACTING SCHOOL FACILITIES IN RURAL DISTRICTSState policies can            affect rural school facilities in several ways. Policies requiring a            specific percentage of growth or decline in student population, or              setting a minimum number of students as a prerequisite for funding,             can negatively affect rural districts. For example, West Virginia               requires elementary schools to house at least 300 students; high                schools must have 800 (grades 9-12). Ohio schools must serve at                 least 350. Such policies, designed to achieve economies of scale,               ignore the many diseconomies of large-scale facilities and often                force consolidation of small rural schools (Lawrence, 2001). In                 Georgia, districts must demonstrate projected growth to qualify for             some state facilities funding programs. In Alaska, a district with              fewer than a certain number of students cannot build a full-size                gymnasium. 
Some states (VT, MT, WY) offer supplemental funding for            rural and isolated schools. However, in many small rural districts,             loss of population has eroded the local tax base, and taxpayers are             reluctant to pass bonds to build schools. 
Population influx,                  usually viewed as positive, can challenge rural schools. Growth can             increase property tax income but compel the community to take on                more debt to house new students. Some districts in rural North                  Carolina must use portable classrooms to accommodate children from              military bases, as federal impact aid does not cover school                     facilities for these children. 
State policies that require                    substantial acreage for school facilities may force districts to                select sites away from population centers, promoting sprawl,                    occupying what was open or agricultural land, and creating large                schools dependent on buses and automobiles. Even if the land is                 donated, bringing water, sewer, power, and roads to the site can be             an expensive undertaking (Beaumont, 2000). 
Maintenance is usually             the largest--sometimes the only--discretionary item in a school                 budget. Few states fund maintenance, so districts often defer needed            work, which can result in costly repairs or loss of buildings.                  Though a few states do fund maintenance, across the nation 2000                 marked the fourth consecutive year that the percentage of school                funding allocated for maintenance shrank (Agron, 2001b). 
As                   schools deteriorate, districts must choose between renovation and               new construction. The oft-quoted statistic that America's schools               average 42 years of age is misleading because schools dating from               the early 1900s were built to last at least 75 years, while those               built later were not as well constructed. It may be wiser to                    renovate well-built older schools than newer ones. Quality of                   original construction, maintenance, and renovation are better                   criteria for decisions. 
In several states, districts are                      ineligible for renovation funding if estimated costs exceed a                   specified portion of new construction costs, usually between 50% and            80% (Rubman, 2000; Lawrence, 2002b). However, estimates may exclude             the value of the existing buildings, land, and infrastructure, as               well as intangible assets (e.g., status as a community hub). Some               states (MD, ME, PA, VT), now support renovation. In others,                     architects and members of the community have convinced officials to             permit renovation despite exceeding the prescribed cost formula.                Fine examples of updated facilities that preserve the character of              school and community include the McClain School in                              Greenfield (OH) (Hawkins, 2000) and Thirman L. Milner School in                 Hartford (CT) (Uline, 2000). 
Building codes and regulations may               also limit choices. Surprisingly, departments of education may                  interpret these codes and regulations more stringently than the                 regulatory agencies. Decision makers should explore how the code                applies and whether leeway can be granted (Beaumont, 2000). 
Some              states require an approved facility design. However, adapting a site            to a plan instead of creating a plan for a site may incur excessive             costs. And ignoring potential environmental benefits inherent in a              site (such as natural lighting, heating, or cooling) increases                  long-term utility costs. Using locally available materials can                  reduce costs and give a building a local identity that is impossible            in preapproved plans (Maine, 2000). COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTMost             state policies neither encourage or discourage community                        participation in planning school facilities, nor do they address                ways communities can share use of the facilities. Local policy,                 stated or implicit, may determine how these occur. Yet, it is                   advisable to encourage community participation in planning a school             facility and identifying ways the community can share in its use,               particularly in rural places, where the school is often the largest             public building. Designing with the community helps assure support              and long-term investment in the facility. For valuable information              see "Schools as Centers of Community" (Bingler & Quinn,                         2000). CONCLUSIONPolicies greatly affect the decisions rural              districts make about building or renovating school facilities. It is            important that people involved with a school facilities project know            the policies that pertain to their locality, assess their impact,               and explore all options for creating a school that serves everyone              in the community. REFERENCES CITEDAgron, J. (2001a). Building             for the boom. (27th annual official education construction report.)             American School & University, 73(9), 22-44. 
Agron, J. (2001b).                Dwindling support. (Maintenance and operations cost study, 30th                 annual report.) American School & University, 73(8),                            24,26-28,30,32. 
Beaumont, C. E. (2000). Historic neighborhood                 schools in the age of sprawl: Why Johnny can't walk to school.                  Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation. (ERIC                 Document Reproduction Service No. ED 450 557) 
Bingler, S., &                  Quinn, L. (2000). Schools as centers of community: A citizen's guide            for planning and design. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of                     Education. Retrieved December 20, 2001, from                                    http://www.ed.gov/inits/construction/ctty-centers.html 
Clarke,                T. (2000). Building America's schools: State efforts to address                 school facility needs. Washington, DC: National Governors                       Association, Education Policy Studies Division. 
Education                     Commission of the States (ECS). (1995). Finance: School facility                policies. ECS StateNotes: Finance--Capital Construction. Denver, CO:            Author. 
General Accounting Office (GAO). (1995). School                       facilities: Condition of America's schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61).                    Washington, DC: Author. 
General Accounting Office (GAO). (1996).              Profiles of school conditions by state (GAO/HEHS-96-148).                       Washington, DC: Author. 
Hawkins, B. L. (2000). Public school                  A-B-C's. Facilities Design and Management, 19(9), 44-48. 
Lawrence,            B. K. (2001) Memos on state policy regarding school size, acreage               requirements. Washington, DC: Rural School and Community                        Trust. 
Lawrence, B. K. (2002a). Lowering the overhead by raising              the roof and other strategies to reduce the cost of your small                  school facility. Washington, DC: Rural School and Community                     Trust. 
Lawrence, B. K. (2002b). Save a penny, lose a school: The              vicious circle of deferred maintenance. Washington, DC: Rural School            and Community Trust. 
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Smerdon, B.,            Cronen, S., & Kaplan, J. (2000). Condition of America's public                  school facilities, 1999. Statistical analysis                                   report. (NCES-2000-032). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of                     Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National             Center for Education Statistics. 
Maine Department of                          Education. (2000). The ABCs of school site selection. Augusta: Maine            Department of Education, State Planning Office. 
National Education            Association (NEA). (2000). Modernizing our schools: What will it                cost? Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service               No. ED 444 339) 
Rubman, K. (2000). A community guide to saving                older schools. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic                      Preservation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449                    651) 
Uline, C. L. (2000). Decent facilities and learning: Thirman             A. Milner elementary school and beyond. Teachers College Record,                102(2), 442-60. OTHER RESOURCES 
Education Commission of the                   States (ECS). (2000). School finance litigation. Denver, CO: Author.            Retrieved December 20, 2001, from                                               http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/18/23/1823.pdf 
Education                     Commission of the States (ECS). (2000). Selected state policies:                1999-2000. ECS StateNotes. Denver, CO: Author. 
General Accounting             Office (GAO). (2000). School facilities: Construction expenditures              have grown significantly in recent years (GAO/HEHS-00-41).                      Washington, DC: Author. 
Harmon, H., Howley, C., Smith, C., &                  Dickens, B. (1998). Planning schools for rural communities [online].            Charleston, WV: AEL, Inc., Rural Center. Retrieved December 20,                 2001, from http://www.ael.org/rel/rural/pdf/planning.pdf 
Rural                School and Community Trust. (n.d.). School facilities: Resources and            connections. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 20, 2001,               from http://www.ruraledu.org/facilities.html 
Sandham, J. L. (2001,            June). Building a new role: States and school facilities (special               report). Education Week [online edition]. Retrieved December 20,                2001, from                                                                      http://www.edweek.org/sreports/special_reports_article.cfm?slug=cons            truction.htm 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Office of                Community Development [home page]. Retrieved December 20, 2001, from            http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ocd/index.html 
U.S. Department of                  Agriculture. (2000). Rural economic area partnership (REAP) zones.              Retrieved December 20, 2001, from                                               http://www.ezec.gov/News/reap.html 
U.S. Department of                         Education. (2000). Qualified zone academy bonds (QZAB). Retrieved               December 20, 2001, from                                                         http://www.ed.gov/inits/construction/generalqzab.html 
U.S.                    Department of Education. (2000). School renovation, IDEA and                    technology grants fact sheet. Urgent School Renovation Grants.                  Retrieved December 20, 2001, from                                               http://www.ed.gov/inits/construction/rengrants.html 
----- 
Barbara           Kent Lawrence directs the School-Community Facilities Network for               the Rural School and Community Trust,                                           http://www.ruraledu.org/facilities.html. 
This publication was                 prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and               Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily                 reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.           **Title:** Effects of State Policies on Facilities Planning and Construction in            Rural Districts. ERIC Digest.                                                **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC/CRESS, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325. Tel:                           800-624-9120 (Toll-Free). For full text:                                        http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc01-8.htm.                               **Descriptors:** Community Involvement, Consolidated Schools, Educational                        Equity (Finance),  Educational Facilities Improvement, Educational              Facilities Planning,  Educational Finance, Elementary Secondary                 Education,  Public Policy,  Rural Schools, School Construction,                  School Districts, State Aid,  State School District Relationship            **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]