Follow the money

With funding opportunities for school capital projects thin on the ground in the UK, is it time to explore other ways of raising money for improvement programmes? Education experts Mairi Johnson and Chris Watson compare the UK and US education funding systems.

Since 2010, ministers have been emphasising that it is the quality of teaching and leadership at a school — not the bricks and mortar — that make a difference in the results it chalks up. As a result, getting funding for capital projects in schools has been difficult, in England at least. The UK government programme called Building Schools for the Future, deemed to have been distributing funds too unevenly around the country, is long gone.

Instead, central government sets standards and funds accommodation to a minimum level. Local government retains responsibility for providing sufficient school places to meet demand, assisted by funding from the centre.

While there are still some options, such as the Priority Schools Building Programme, the Academies Capital Maintenance Fund or even Basic Need funding for Local Authorities, the fact is that individual schools must make the most of what they have.

If a school wants to improve its environment beyond the minimum, then it is up to the school community, or academy trust, to raise money through grants from external bodies, sponsorship, fund raising or careful management of reserves.

Mend and make do

The reality is that schools, in England at least, are not resourced to spend time raising substantial amounts of money. Obvious approaches, such as raising money by selling off school land for development, are rarely a viable option because of strict measures in place to prevent schools from losing playing fields and recreational spaces.

Achieving the best environment possible becomes a matter of adapting existing buildings, imaginative use of available funds or accumulative change from small projects that are paid for by routine maintenance budgets.

Given the current political climate, this thinking is not going away any time soon. But is there really no alternative? Are there any ways in which local authorities or individual institutions could raise additional cash for refurbishments, or even to build new schools?

This is a complex area, both politically and legally. But, if you look outside of the UK, it is possible to find some alternative options, which are both innovative and effective.

State side

In the USA, schools are funded and managed in school districts. These are separate from other forms of local government and have their own tax raising powers. Revenue from taxes is used for the day-to-day management of schools.

If a school district wants to fund a programme of improvements beyond their annual tax income, they can borrow money against their future tax revenues, through a mechanism called a bond programme.

Crucially, this requires local voters to vote on whether the school district should take on the debt, and on the intended use of the money.

For this reason, school districts and their private sector partners spend a lot of time engaging with the local community in the run-up to the bond programme referendum. The district presents schematic plans for the new school buildings and emphasises the benefits to the community.

Reach out and get involved

It’s a serious undertaking. The programmes themselves are often massive, for one thing. School districts often need the help of professional programme managers to make sure delivery happens on time and on budget. AECOM has worked on several of these programmes including San Bernardino City Unified School District, where we augmented the district’s in-house expertise to ensure success.

What’s more, the referendum result is legally binding, so if the community says no it is back to the drawing board for the District. Even with an approval vote for the proposal school boards, local people and community groups can have a real, decisive influence on shaping and changing the designs.

For that reason, engagement programmes are extensive and carefully thought out. There are meetings with school boards as well as ‘town hall’ sessions, where everyone in the community can see what’s proposed.

Websites provide a portal for information about the programme, and a place to register queries and issues. Leaflet drops and door-to-door visits from district teams help get the message out to those members in hard-to-reach areas of the community.

A taxing proposition?

Perhaps because of this concerted engagement effort, spending on schools is popular and most substantial bond programmes are voted through. There are occasional objections, but teams do their best to address these before the vote takes place.

Those objections tend to come either from younger adults, who may not have children themselves and don’t understand why they should pay for more schools, or from older members of the community, who view the tax payment as cutting into their fixed pension allowance.

These are sensible points and districts must treat these groups with the respect they deserve. The key is emphasising the positive benefits that great schools offer to the whole community. Good schools push up property values and attract new people to an area — all of which makes it a better place to live for young and old.

New school facilities can also provide multifunctional use. Some districts share premises with organisations such as the YMCA or community groups. This approach is easy to replicate in other programmes, offering facilities for older people to exercise, take classes or spend time with friends.

Carry on talking

Importantly, engagement doesn’t stop once the bond programme is voted through. District representatives, their designers and programme managers continue to work with local people and school leadership teams to make sure every last detail is right. And when construction starts, local people are kept in the loop about key milestones, deliveries, noise and so on.

One of the benefits of this system is that it leads to a very close relationship between schools and their communities. School districts prefer to spend their funds within their locale so schools are able to establish a close relationship with local suppliers. Synchronising schools with community lays the groundwork for future bond programmes, especially in poorer areas requiring extensive, long-term investment in their educational infrastructure.

Bring it back home

Could this ever happen in the UK? Last year’s referendum on Scottish independence set in motion a series of events that might just mean that it could. The Scots voted ‘No’ but the subsequent proposals for devolution max (full fiscal autonomy) mean that precedents are being set that could be implemented in new regional governments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland already has full control of its education spending, and its standards and priorities differ from the rest of the UK.

The Manchester city region is making serious plans to operate as a regional government and could be followed by other parts of England. In Greater London, mayoral hopefuls have called for an independent body to oversee education in the capital.

If these regional governments come into existence, they are likely to have some tax collecting or rate collecting powers. Any funds that are raised would probably be ring-fenced for spending through local businesses.

As for the design of schools, regional government might not be required to follow central government guidelines for space standards and so on. Central government still produces guidance on school design via the Building Bulletins, but most of this information is not a legal requirement.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

So, the answer is: perhaps, if national and regional devolution reaches its ‘max’. If it does, it’s worth considering the amount of community engagement that will potentially be required to get school funding schemes off the ground. For bond programme-type funding programmes to have any chance of success, local people will have to be welcomed into capital programmes with open arms. It may be a bold approach, but it won’t be the first time that good ideas from across the water have found safe harbour in the UK.

Measure T:  Transforming San Bernardino’s schools

San Bernardino City Unified School District in California, United States, proves that transformational change can be achieved thanks to voter-funded bond programmes, writes Domingo Camarano.

San Bernardino’s need was huge. By 2003, the district’s educational infrastructure was impoverished and in bad repair. Chronic overcrowding had forced the introduction of a year-round school calendar, putting further pressure on facilities. Students test scores were low and drop-out rates were high.

In 2003, ‘Measure T’, a US$140m bond programme to improve and repair educational facilities was agreed, subject to voter approval, with AECOM appointed as programme manager. Over the next 10 years, the programme delivered more than 200 improvement projects at 70 sites across the district.

The team built 15 new schools and completed 52 school modernisation projects. There were 20 new special day (needs) classrooms and 10 heating, ventilation and air conditioning projects. Crucially, 18,000 new school places meant that the phased term times of the year-long calendar could be abolished.

As well as classroom learning, links with community organisations and universities meant that students could also gain access to vocational skills or, through state-of-the-art IT, participate in college-level classes online. Many of the new sports and recreational facilities were also created as shared use with the local community, meaning everyone could benefit.

Delivering Measure T was an impressive achievement for the district and AECOM had a critical role to play in that success. AECOM’s expert team advised on getting the language of the bond exactly right, so that the widest possible range of improvement works could be included. AECOM also supported a comprehensive engagement programme.

With the bond approved, AECOM’s programme managers handled cost management, created new design standards and conducted a range of facility assessments, as well as ensuring delivery was kept on track.

AECOM’s finance experts also supported district administrators to make sure funds, both from the bond and an additional US$400m from federal hardship funds, flowed to projects as efficiently as possible.

Although the Measure T programme is now in its final stages, the district is setting up another bond programme, with AECOM again advising, to keep up the positive momentum and continue to drive improvements throughout the school district.