Written by National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI),
For economist Julien Lafortune, school facilities are not just bricks and mortar. They are foundational to how students experience school, how communities value education, and how improved educational outcomes can be achieved. “A student’s school facility is their first and most salient impression of how much their government invests in them as a student,” he explains. Through his work in academia and now with the Public Policy Institute of California, Lafortune has made it his mission to understand exactly how investment in educational facilities shape student learning. In this post, we dive into Lafortune’s findings and take-aways for school facilities stewardship.
Across his numerous research studies, Lafortune’s findings converge on one central point: the condition of school facilities has a direct impact on student outcomes. “Students in more modernized buildings attend school more often,” he notes. But positive student impacts go beyond just attendance. Upholding a minimum standard of physical quality for school infrastructure—roofs that don’t leak, HVAC systems that maintain clean air at reasonable temperatures, spaces free of mold or overcrowding—is not simply a matter of comfort. “These features of buildings are not mere amenities. They improve student outcomes,” Lafortune states.
Test scores rise in districts that invest in facilities upgrades, especially when those investments support basic operational systems (e.g., plumbing, HVAC), as well as health and safety features. In fact, investing in HVAC has an even greater effect on student test scores than investing in STEM equipment. “Facilities are foundational to learning,” Lafortune explains. Furthermore, Lafortune’s work has found that investments in facility improvements have the greatest impact in lower-income communities. In wealthier districts, basic needs are often already met, so new projects may have less of an effect on learning. But in under-resourced schools, addressing fundamental gaps in operational systems can transform educational opportunities.
This makes facilities stewardship a critical strategy for improving educational outcomes for all students. “If we’re trying to reduce gaps,” Lafortune argues, “targeting these places that may not have the ability to make these investments locally or without state support could have the bigger impact. We’re trying to maximize our improvement on outcomes per dollar.”
Beyond affecting measurable outcomes like test scores or attendance, facilities shape how students and staff engage with school. “A student doesn’t necessarily know much about how well-resourced their school is,” Lafortune reflects, “but a student can tell if their building is nicer, or is worse. Students know if their school’s heat works, and if their friend’s HVAC in the next district over doesn’t.” Those impressions affect not only morale and engagement but also relationships across the school community.
And it isn’t just students or school staff that are impacted by school facility conditions. Communities also benefit when they have top-notch school facilities. In communities that invest in their school facilities, Lafortune’s research has found that “housing prices [go] up in that area” as well. His work underscores that families and neighborhoods place tangible value on well-maintained schools. The school building becomes a visible signal of public investment in children and the future.
A virtuous cycle can emerge when communities understand—and trust—the ways that such investments are managed by their school districts. Communities that see facilities dollars used effectively are more likely to support future bonds or levies. “In some places, communities have a lot of trust in the district to spend the money wisely. And in other places, that hasn’t been the case,” Lafortune explains. Community engagement—such as incorporating student voices into priority-setting or citizen oversight committees to support transparent communications back to families and taxpayers—help build and maintain that trust, and translate in turn into growing support for school infrastructure spending.
For Lafortune, the most urgent takeaway is that school districts should raise the floor of what counts as “adequate” facilities, because we have so much evidence—thanks to the research by Lafortune and others—that degraded facilities undermine student academic performance. “There are schools that don’t have enough bathrooms, or functional classroom spaces, or the roof is leaking and there’s mold. There are HVAC issues where you don’t have adequate heating in the winter or cooling in the summer.”
Further, extreme weather and climate change amplify the problems of these inadequacies. As climate change brings hotter summers, extended wildfire seasons, and worsening air quality, these challenges become even more pressing. At the same time, the original construction of school buildings in many districts predates the birth of their current students’ grandparents. As extreme weather events increase, and decades-old buildings continue to deteriorate, Lafortune warns that student learning is likely to suffer. “There’s a lot of evidence on, for example, air quality and achievement consequences for students,” he noted, adding that states and districts ignore these facility issues to the detriment of students.
Over time, building codes, principles of human-centered design, and funding structures all require attention—and perhaps revision—in order to put the focus squarely on what matters: the experiences of the students in these buildings.
The question, Lafortune suggests, is not whether communities should invest in world-class facilities, but rather how to ensure all students have access to healthy, functional learning environments. “School facilities are core to the learning experience. We’re not talking about extravagance.”
“The funding mechanisms for school facilities are very different from the mechanisms for school district operational funding,” Lafortune explains. “Facilities funding is mostly locally-sourced, and therefore reflects the local wealth that a community has.” This reliance on local property taxes and general obligation bonds leaves many districts at a disadvantage, perpetuating resource disparities even as broader reforms and state funding formulas aim to equalize operational funding.
Taken together, Lafortune’s findings highlight facility stewardship as central to student success. The message is clear: investments in roofs, HVAC systems, and safe, functional spaces are not luxuries. They are evidence of care, equity, and commitment to learning. In effect, taking care of school facilities is a way to steward future generations of students. As Lafortune concludes, “It matters how we spend our money, and whom we spend it on.”