Let’s Beat the Heat and Address Systemic Inequality by Investing in the Nation’s Public School Infrastructure by J. Cameron Anglum

As another hazardous heat wave grips the nation, public cries for large-scale infrastructure investments again have captured increased attention. Energy insecurity, droughts, and wildfires are increasingly commonplace and life-threatening. Here in Saint Louis the temperature is 91 degrees with 60 percent humidity right now – it feels as though one could cut the air with a butter knife. But lest you feel sympathetic, I am, of course, conducting my work in a climate-controlled environment. Millions of public school students and teachers across the country cannot say the same, however, only exacerbating the challenging conditions for schools striving to recover from the most difficult school year in memory.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the condition of the nation’s public school infrastructure has entered the spotlight as educational leaders seek to reopen their schools safely while mitigating the possibility of virus transmission. While many school districts have pursued investments to accommodate improved HV/AC capacities and social distancing, the quality of our nation’s school infrastructure varies widely, a heterogeneity which has shed additional light on educational inequities.

In many schools, desperate pleas for facilities investments to address even very basic needs have remained unheeded. Inadequate school air conditioning (Park et al., 2020) is just one example of an infrastructure deficit (e.g., Jackson & Johnson, 2021) which directly harms equitable student outcomes. Many schools, predominantly those that serve the largest shares of low-income and racial minority students, navigate recurring environmental concerns related to pollution (Persico & Venator, 2021), lead (Sorenson et al., 2021), and asbestos contamination (Duffy & Lapp, 2020). Still others lack well-functioning broadband access necessary for modern learning technology (Hampton et al., 2020). In short, the day of reckoning for widespread school infrastructure improvements likely long has passed.

While equity-focused changes to state school funding formulae have improved the outcomes of economically disadvantaged and racial minority students through instructional spending, recent research on school facilities spending has indicated similar promise. A recent meta-analytic study combining the findings of a range of school facilities spending literature estimates the medium- to long-term impact of school capital investments to be similar to those of non-capital expenditures, leveraging evidence from varied school contexts (Jackson & Mackevicius, 2021). Despite this evidence, equitable facilities financing mechanisms remain elusive.

Just as the quality of school facilities varies, so too have local and state investments in public school infrastructure. In the 2017-18 school year, for example, capital outlays ranged dramatically, more than fivefold higher per pupil in the highest spending state relative to the lowest spending (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). While the majority of these costs are expended through local tax revenues, state contributions to school infrastructure vary widely as well, ranging from less than 5% of school capital expenditures in 23 states to more than 50% in seven states. This uneven distribution of funding disproportionately impacts students in the lowest income school districts (Rauscher, 2020). In the decade of economic recovery since the Great Recession, capital spending in low-income districts has not increased, while the disparity in state facilities support for low-income districts relative to high-income districts has doubled (Biasi et al., 2021). Extensive changes to facilities financing policies, therefore, likely are necessary to address longstanding inequities in a post-pandemic world (Richmond, 2019).

A two-pronged approach can address at least a portion of this spending inequality. First, in the near-term school districts can support facilities investments by leveraging federal funding made available through President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund. Though educational leaders must weigh the benefits of facilities spending against other pandemic-era costs, a portion of the $122 billion spending package (U.S. Department of Education) should be allocated to non-recurring school capital improvements over the bill’s three-year duration. High-poverty schools will receive substantially larger federal stimulus, helping address current inequities.

Second, both states and the federal government can pursue long-term change by targeting infrastructure spending to high-poverty school districts (Knight & DeMatthews, 2021). Historically, the federal government has served a minimal role to support school facilities spending. Though that role appears unlikely to change through President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill (Blad, 2021a), the President’s previously proposed $100 billion federal school infrastructure investment (Blad, 2021b) would have indicated a substantial departure from prior practice. Similar investment could be prioritized in future federal legislation. At the state level, school infrastructure spending could be more equitably supported through statewide funding formulae rather than local tax capacities, those same state mechanisms which have been revised over many decades to support low-income students.

Fortunately, the current moment presents a significant opportunity to invest in school facilities that have lacked consistent financial investments. As Democrats, Republicans, and the general public debate the spending priorities of a national infrastructure bill, many students are finishing up the school year – one spent away from school classrooms in many contexts – in environments that fail to facilitate student engagement and teacher instruction. The time has long passed for substantial national investment in school facilities, particularly targeted to schools serving vulnerable student populations.

References

Biasi, B., Lafortune, J., & Schönholzer, D. (2021). School Capital Expenditure Rules and Distribution. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 111, 450-54.

Blad, E. (2021a, June 25). What a Bipartisan Infrastructure Agreement Between Biden, Senators Would Mean for Schools. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/
policy-politics/what-a-bipartisan-infrastructure-agreement-between-biden-senators-would-mean-for-schools/2021/06.

Blad, E. (2021b, April 1). Biden Infrastructure Plan Calls for $100 Billion for School Construction, Upgrades. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/biden-infrastructure-plan-calls-for-100-billion-for-school-construction-upgrades/2021/03.

Duffy, M., & Lapp, D. (2020). State Funding to Ensure Safe and Healthy School Facilities: Lessons for Pennsylvania. Research for Action.

Hampton, K., Fernandez, L., Robertson, C., & Bauer, J. M. (2020). Broadband and student performance gaps.

Knight, K. S., & DeMatthews, D. (2021, May 14). Three things state education agencies could be doing right now. TheHill. https://thehill.com/opinion/
education/553522-three-things-state-education-agencies-could-be-doing-right-now.

Jackson, V., & Johnson, N. (2021). America’s school infrastructure needs a major investment of federal funds to advance an equitable recovery. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/americas-school-infrastructure-needs-a-major-investment-of-federal

Jackson, C. K., & Mackevicius, C. (2021). The distribution of school spending impacts (No. w28517). National Bureau of Economic Research.

National Center for Education Statistics (2020). Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2020menu_tables.asp

Park, R. J., Goodman, J., Hurwitz, M., & Smith, J. (2020). Heat and learning. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2), 306-39.

Persico, C. L., & Venator, J. (2021). The effects of local industrial pollution on students and schools. Journal of Human Resources, 56(2), 406-445.

Rauscher, E. (2020). Delayed benefits: Effects of California school district bond elections on achievement by socioeconomic status. Sociology of Education, 93(2), 110-131.

Richmond, E. (2019 April 22). When school districts can’t raise funds for facilities. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/when-school-districts-cant-raise-funds-for-facilities/.

Sorensen, L. C., Fox, A. M., Jung, H., & Martin, E. G. (2019). Lead exposure and academic achievement: Evidence from childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. Journal of Population Economics, 32(1), 179-218.

U.S. Department of Education (2021). U.S. Department of Education Fact Sheet: American Rescue Plan of 2021 – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER). https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/03/FINAL_ARP-ESSER-FACT-SHEET.pdf