Subsidizing School Construction in Massachusetts

Reports that some affluent Massachusetts school districts spend exorbitant amounts of money to build top-of-the-line school facilities have drawn media criticism and seized the attention of state officials. The prime example is a proposed $197 million high school in Newton—the most expensive high school in Massachusetts history—that has already gone over its original $141 million budget. Other projects, such as a $159 million high school in Wellesley, are also forecasting high and escalating costs. Last week state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill warned that the state will not subsidize excessive school construction spending by districts that do not keep construction costs under control, or for building features, such as planetariums or swimming pools, that are not essential to schools' academic purpose.

Cahill chairs the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), which the state legislature created in 2004 to take over a poorly-managed school building assistance program. After three years of working to clean up financial problems and get funding to previously approved projects, the MSBA started accepting applications for new projects on July 1, 2007. The legislature capped the annual state contribution at $500 million in fiscal year 2008, and the cap will increase annually by 4.5 percent.

MSBA assistance is well-structured to target state aid to the neediest schools and districts, in terms of both facility needs and financial hardship. MSBA reimburses school districts for between 40 and 80 percent of eligible school construction or renovation project costs, depending on district wealth (per capita income and equalized property valuation) and poverty (proportion of low-income students. MSBA also prioritizes school building projects that are necessary for safety, health, or over-crowding concerns. In the first round of new applications last year, the MSBA selected 83 schools to receive funding, out of 423 requests.

MSBA has engaged with these construction projects from the beginning, conducting feasibility studies to determinine new construction is needed, and working with districts to ensure that project designs are sensible, cost-effective, and stay on course. MSBA tried to offer cost-cutting suggestions to Newton, but the city rejected them. MSBA capped its contribution to Newton at $46.5 million--regardless of the project’s final cost.

Because Massachusetts has limited funding available to support school facilities projects, it needs to ensure those funds are focused on the neediest communities and schools, such as Southbridge High School, which had to shut down its library and media center because of structural damage. When local school districts cannot raise enough of their own money from property taxes to fix neglected school buildings, the result is that nothing gets done, and the health and safety of students—and in turn their academic performance—is jeopardized. School districts, like Newton, that can raise sufficient local funding to support elaborate buildings, do not have the same need for state funding.

Cahill and MSBA should continue to "hold the line" on funding. The purpose of state building funds like the MSBA should be to give a helping hand to low-income schools with run-down facilities in need of replacement or repair. The Massachusetts legislature crafted the MSBA with the correct priorities in mind; now the MSBA must ensure that its financial support is put to the best use.