The debate over how influential financial resources are for schools and educational outcomes has been going on since at least the 1960s. One recent study, from a trio of researchers from Yale, the Public Policy Institute of California, and UC Santa Cruz, sheds new light on how resources directed towards school facilities can impact student achievement, which investments have the greatest impact, and for whom the impact is greatest.
This innovative study drew on a particular form of capital investments, bonds, which are typically issued by school districts and voted on by constituents in bond referenda items on election ballots. These bond referenda set out the intended use of the funds, project costs, and projected increases to local housing taxes. Bonds may set aside funding for classroom space, infrastructure (plumbing, roofs, furnaces, HVAC systems, etc.), IT facilities and labs, building adjustments to comply with health and safety standards, athletic facilities, land purchases, and vehicles procurement (school buses, for instance).
The researchers took data related to bond elections, combined with school district finances, school enrollment and demographic data, student academic achievement scores, and housing prices across the U.S. from as early as 1994 in some states, and 2003-2019 in most. Their dataset covered 12,370 bond elections across 29 states.
Overall, they found that bond authorizations raise capital outlays per student by about $1,500 in the first five years after authorization, with test scores increasing by +0.10 district-level standard deviations after eight years. In addition, they found that the positive impacts of bond authorizations on test scores were concentrated in districts with large shares of free- and reduced-price lunch eligible students or minority (Black and Hispanic or Latino/a) students.
But most interestingly, the authors were able to delve into differences in impact of different categories of bonds. Specifically, they found that only some expenditures had an effect of student test scores: HVAC (ES = +0.20 over 3-6 years post-election), renovations to plumbing, roofs, furnaces, or STEM equipment (ES = +0.17), safety and health improvements (ES = +0.16), and classroom space (ES = +0.12). These findings are in line with recent research on the negative impact of excessive heat and toxic materials in schools on student achievement and cognitive outcomes. In contrast, bonds for athletic facilities, land purchases, and transportation had statistically insignificant or near-zero impacts on student achievement. Using time-specific estimates, they were further able to estimate that the impact of HVAC bonds peaks 3-5 years post-election and then fades out quickly, while infrastructure, safety and health, and STEM bonds saw slower fade out effects.
In these times of lower school funding and loss of federal support, it is important for school districts and states to consider carefully how to spend their available funding. These findings point to some important types of funding that may be most beneficial and for those whom the funds may be most meaningful.
Source (Open Access): Biasi, B., Lafortune, J. M., & Schönholzer, D. (2024). What Works and For Whom? Effectiveness and Efficiency of School Capital Investments Across The U.S. (Working Paper No. 32040). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32040