Born in the USA: funding success from the States

Education experts Mairi Johnson, Global Education Sector Lead, AECOM, and Chris Watson, PM/CM Business Line Lead, AECOM, compare the UK and US education funding sytems.

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 to the results it chalks up. As a result, getting funding for capital projects in schools has been difficult, in England at least. Building Schools for the Future is long gone, deemed to be distributing funds too unevenly around the country. 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 long and the short of it 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 the money for this 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 the loss of school playing fields. Achieving the best environment possible becomes a matter of adapting existing buildings, imaginative use of available funds or accumulative change from small projects, paid for from 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.

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. The taxes they raise are used to manage the schools day to day. 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 within a District 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 to budget. AECOM has worked on several of these programmes, augmenting 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 a positive vote, 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 place to register queries and issues. Leaflet drops and door-to-door visits from District teams help get the message out to those harder to reach members of the community.

A taxing proposition?
Perhaps because of this concerted engagement effort, spending on schools is popular and most substantial bond programs 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 for whom the tax payment will cut 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 have on 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. And new school facilities can also have a wider 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 and 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. It lays the groundwork for future Bond Programmes, which will be essential for 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 train a series of events that might just mean that it could. The Scots voted ‘No’ but the subsequent arrangements for DevoMax mean that precedents are being set that could be implemented in  new regional governments in England and in Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland already has full control of its education spending and its standards and priorities differ from England’s.

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 locally 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.

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 find safe harbour in the UK.

Transforming San Bernardino’s schools
The example of San Bernardino City Unified School District, in California, USA, is one that proves that transformational change can be achieved thanks to voter‑funded bond programmes. The need for improvement 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 $140m bond programme to improve and repair educational facilities was agreed, subject to voter approval. 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. And, 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.

Further Information
www.aecom.com