Elements of Stewardship

In the U.S., local education agencies bear primary responsibility for the education of children and youth, including the duty to provide public facilities for primary and secondary schooling. But, states take a significant part in regulating and supporting the schools, and the federal government also provides guidance and assistance. Stewardship for the nation’s school facilities is a product of actions and relations across this loose-jointed system.

Three principles apply to all parts of the system and define the responsibilities of stewardship:

• Facilities for children require special features, management, and oversight.
• Educational equity is not possible without adequate and appropriate school facilities.
• Public governance that includes fair and robust civic engagement is necessary to earn public trust and support for investment in school facilities.

To function effectively and fulfill its mission to provide equitable access to appropriate school facilities for all the nation’s children and youth, the education system must work across six elements:

Each of the six elements is essential, and each part of the system – local, state, and federal – has a role to play in executing each element.

Take-Aways:

• Governance & Decision Making: Providing adequate school facilities for all children is a shared responsibility, with complementary roles for local, state, and federal stakeholders. In almost every state, local school districts operate the public schools from day to day. Districts are governed by elected school boards, whose powers and obligations are defined by state law. Districts are also guided by state standards and regulations, and their work is supported by state and federal agencies. Equity requires there be compensatory processes to ensure adequate support for disadvantaged and disenfranchised communities, and to provide transparent systems of public review and approval.
  
  
• Funding: Two types of facilities funding are essential: capital funds for construction and renovation, and operating funds for utilities, maintenance, and repair. The system must supply dedicated, stable, and adequate funding of both types. Local school districts need both the legal authority and the staff capacity to generate funding through combinations of public assets and private equity. States and the federal government can supplement local investment and facilitate access to affordable credit.
  
  
• Management: To realize the full value of their investment in school facilities, districts must incorporate a vision and standards for facilities in their strategic plans, then equip and empower their facilities managers to anticipate challenges, align resources with needs, and support the district’s educational priorities. Facilities management need not, should not, equate with crisis management; rather, it should be among the ways a district fulfills its educational mission.
  
  
• Planning: Deliberate planning helps districts align their resources with their needs so they can deliver improvements with the most value for the least cost. A district’s facilities plan should encompass operations, maintenance, and utilization as well as long-term capital improvement. Planning is most effective when informed by unambiguous mandates, up-to-date standards, and relevant guidance from state agencies and other providers. Involving community partners and stakeholders in the planning process can turn up innovative ways to meet the district’s needs. (For related resources, visit the Educational Facilities Master Planning page).
  
  
• Data & Information: Good planning, management, and governance of school facilities all require access to reliable, relevant data about their condition. When decision-makers have access to quality data and trustworthy analyses, their stewardship for school facilities is better informed and perhaps less likely to become politicized. School facilities data can also inform planning by municipal agencies and partners. The education system as a whole would benefit from developing standard types of facilities data at the local, state, and federal levels. A normative Facility Condition Index (FCI) assessment, for example, can provide a comprehensive and rational basis for a district to develop its educational facilities master plan. Results can be used to prioritize maintenance and operations work as well as capital investment, comparing the cost-effectiveness to repair or replace building components and systems.
  
  
• Accountability: If the condition of school facilities is not integrated into the accountability framework for public education, then the system lacks a critical incentive for stewardship.  In an accountable system, districts are encouraged to plan deliberately and manage facilities to forestall risks to the health, safety, and performance of their students and staff. Outside such a system, districts can easily be trapped in cycles of reactivity – making costly emergency repairs and responding haphazardly to shifts in enrollment. Without standards and methods to assess the condition of school buildings and grounds, inequities may be overlooked. So may acts of negligence or fraud. Just as the system uses performance standards to drive progress on academic achievement, so it needs standards and measures for the quality of school facilities – and remedies where performance is lacking.