Fixing the Foundation: Uneven Access to Modern Schools and a Blueprint for a More Equitable Future

Executive Summary

Inequities in access to school facilities with conditions suited to 21st century learning contribute heavily to large and growing achievement gaps in Massachusetts. Despite considerable effort by the legislature over the past two decades, the data presented in this report show students in Boston and the Gateway Cities continue to learn in buildings
that are deteriorating, lacking in basic features, and often cramped and overcrowded. Additional reforms and resource allocations to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) are clearly required to ensure that all students can learn in adequate school facilities, a right granted to them under the Supreme Judicial Court’s interpretations of the state constitution.

This executive summary condenses the full report to show how state aid for educational facilities fails to prioritize those with the greatest need, the large socioeconomic disparities in facility conditions that result, the cost and timeframe for addressing the problem under various scenarios, and key actions policymakers can take now.

School Construction Aid Fails to Prioritize Communities with the Greatest Needs

With a progressive funding formula and an explicit mandate to prioritize obsolete buildings, the MSBA’s statutory framework should position the
authority to direct investment to urban districts with outmoded school facilities. However, state funding tied to sales tax revenue growth rather than an objective regular assessment of financial needs across the commonwealth, a competitive process that requires local school districts to opt in, and administrative policies instituted by the MSBA that result in sharper reductions for urban districts with fewer financial resources have resulted in patterns of aid distribution that favor school districts with
less extreme facility deficiencies and greater fiscal capacity. The following datapoints illustrate the extent of the problem:

1. The MSBA’s Core Program has disproportionately benefited suburban districts. Through its Core Program, the MSBA distributes large grants to help communities build new schools or fully replace or renovate existing facilities. From 2015 to 2024, suburban schools accounted for more than half (57%) of those invited to the Core Program, even though these buildings make up just 43 percent of all schools in Massachusetts. In sharp contrast, Boston and the Gateway Cities have been significantly underrepresented among invites to the Core Program. Together, these urban districts make up nearly one-third (32 percent) of all schools in Massachusetts, but they have received less than 19 percent of invitations to the Core Program since 2015.
   
   This allocation runs counter to the need. According to data from the statewide facility condition survey conducted in 2016, schools with low ratings for learning environment and building conditions, those missing essential learning features, and those with overcrowding were between two and five times more likely to be located in Boston and the Gateway Cities (Figure ES1).
   
2. Since 2015, schools with the best Building Condition Ratings (BCR) have received nearly two-thirds of Core Program invitations. Between 2015 and 2024, the MSBA invited 32 Level 1 schools and 52 Level 2 schools into the Core Program. Together, these schools accounted for 65 percent of all invitations. Only three of these top-rated buildings were over capacity in 2016, while 28 (33 percent) were underutilized.
3. A needs-based allocation model between 2015 and 2024 could have addressed a majority of the most severe school facility condition issues in Massachusetts. From 2015 to 2024, the MSBA issued 156 Core Program invitations. Under a model that prioritized schools with the most severe physical deficiencies, it would have been possible to replace or renovate all 20 Level 4 schools and more than half of the Level 3 schools over the past decade.
4. Cost-control policies disproportionately affect urban districts. Compared to other communities, urban districts have been subject to much larger reductions from the maximum reimbursement rate allowed under state law and the actual reimbursement rate with cost control measures imposed by the MSBA. While all districts received less than their statutory reimbursement rate between 2008 and 2024, Boston and the Gateway Cities saw average reductions of 34 and 19 percentage points, respectively, compared to just 12 percentage points for suburban districts.

Students Who Disproportionately Attend Schools with
Inhospitable Learning Environments

To date, there has been little effort to identify and address socioeconomic disparities in access to high-quality school facilities in Massachusetts. Quantifying these inequities is a key first step to remedying them. Examining 2024 enrollment in all public schools (excluding non-district charters), major inequities are readily apparent (Figure ES2):

• Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to attend overcrowded schools. In Massachusetts, 8 percent of Black students and 12 percent of Hispanic students attend overcrowded schools compared to just 4 percent of White students. Nearly 10 percent of economically disadvantaged students attend overcrowded schools, versus less than 5 percent of those without economic disadvantage.
• Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to attend schools with inferior physical conditions. Only 13 percent of White students attend schools with Level 3 or 4 Building Condition Ratings. In contrast, 22 percent of Black and Hispanic students learn in schools with substantial physical defects. Nearly 22 percent of economically disadvantaged students attend schools with poor physical conditions, versus less than 13 percent of those without economic disadvantage.
• Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to attend schools lacking learning features that are essential to a well-rounded education. Nearly 20 percent of Black and Hispanic students attend schools without an art room compared to less than 9 percent of White students. The disparity in access to art rooms is similar for low-income (18 percent lacking) and non-low-income students (9 percent lacking). Learning spaces for music are even more unevenly distributed in Massachusetts; nearly one-quarter of Black students and 30 percent of Hispanic students are enrolled in schools without this feature, versus just 15 percent of White students. While there is greater parity with access to science labs, libraries, and media centers present the most extreme disparity. Only 4 percent of White students attend a school without a library compared to 12 percent of Black students and over 13 percent of Hispanic students. Similarly, 11 percent of low-income students attend schools without libraries compared to 5 percent of non-low-income students.
• Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to attend schools lacking features that are essential to their health and well-being. Nearly 7 percent of Black students and over 10 percent of Hispanic students attend schools without cafeterias where they can receive healthy foods and socialize and interact with peers outside of the classroom. In comparison, just 4 percent of White students go to schools that lack cafeterias. Students of color are also much more likely to attend schools without gymnasiums for physical fitness. Almost 13 percent of Black students and 14 percent of Hispanic students are at schools without a gym, compared to just 7 percent of White students. Compared to those without economic disadvantage, low-income students are also much more likely to attend schools without gyms (12 percent versus 7 percent, respectively).
• Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to attend schools with multiple deficiencies. Nearly one-fifth of Black students and almost one-quarter of Hispanic students attend schools missing three or more of the essential features for learning, health, and well-being included in the MSBA inventory. In comparison, only 10 percent of White students in Massachusetts are enrolled in schools with multiple facility limitations. Nearly 21 percent of economically disadvantaged students attend schools lacking multiple features, versus 11 percent of those who are not economically disadvantaged.

The full report provides a review of the academic research documenting the consequences associated with each of these disparities. The analysis also highlights the exceptionally strong relationship between measures of school building quality and school segregation. More specifically:

• Segregated non-White schools account for 19 percent of all schools in Massachusetts, but they make up 30 percent of schools with the lowest BCRs, 47 percent of schools missing three or more essential learning features, and 66 percent of overcrowded schools.
• Schools with high concentrations of poverty account for 33 percent of schools in Massachusetts, but they make up 50 percent of schools with the lowest BCRs, 58 percent of schools missing three or more essential learning features, and 87 percent of overcrowded schools.

Evaluating the Price and Pace of Progress

To address these uneven conditions, policymakers need an understanding of how much it will cost over various timeframes. While producing these figures with the limited data currently available is difficult, it is possible to develop low- and high-end scenarios to provide order-of-magnitude estimates:

• Massachusetts has 276 schools that have well-below-average facility condition ratings or operate significantly over capacity. Roughly 60 percent of these buildings are located in Boston or a Gateway City. Replacing or substantially renovating them would cost an estimated $14 billion. It will take nearly 50 years to rebuild all 276 schools with the current ratio of MSBA resources to high-need projects. Targeting two-thirds of resources toward high-need buildings would cut this timeframe in half. Massachusetts could replace or modernize all 276 buildings in just 16 years if it committed all MSBA resources to high-need projects.
• A much stricter definition of need produces a lower-bound estimate of just 46 high-need schools. Three-quarters of these buildings are located in Boston or a Gateway City. They total about 3.2 million square feet of space. Replacing them would cost approximately $2.1 billion. Prioritizing their replacement would require eight years to address under the business-as-usual allocation, four years with two-thirds prioritization, and just three years with full prioritization.

Seven Key Actions Policymakers Can Take Now

While additional data, analysis, and discussion will be necessary to identify precise solutions to these problems, an effective response will include the
following:

1. Increase MSBA funding and prioritize inadequate buildings. To meaningfully address the growing backlog of school construction needs, the commonwealth must both increase funding for school infrastructure and strengthen the MSBA’s mandate to prioritize projects based on the severity of building inadequacy and student need.
2. Reexamine land acquisition, site preparation, and other reimbursement policies to increase equity and more effectively support high-need districts. The data presented in this analysis clearly show that current reimbursement policies disadvantage urban districts with the greatest needs. The MSBA should work with qualified construction firms, architects, superintendents, and local government leaders experienced in urban school construction to identify specific ineligible and partially eligible cost areas that disproportionately impact urban districts. This review should include extra emphasis on the cost communities shoulder to acquire and prepare urban land. Many cities must consolidate schools on parcels large enough to serve more students with adequate outdoor recreational space. Often, this will require costly land takings. The MSBA should also conduct financial modelling to determine whether the maximum reimbursement rate under current state law makes adhering to a responsible cycle of school renovation or replacement financially affordable for all districts.
3. Ensure that the next facility conditions survey provides an objective and transparent benchmark for adequacy. The legislature has required the MSBA to conduct regular facility conditions surveys since its inception, yet this inventory has not given policymakers enough information to know when students are in facilities that do not meet objective standards for adequacy. This clarity is vital for policymakers to respond to these situations appropriately. Leaders in the legislature and the Healey-Driscoll administration can work with urban superintendents, educators, public health experts, and the MSBA to build consensus on how an adequacy measure can be developed from the new facility conditions survey currently underway.
4. Require municipalities to co-invest with the state when buildings are deemed educationally inadequate. Similar to the Chapter 70 formula, all communities must do their part within their means to ensure that students have access to adequate facilities for learning. The legislature should adopt provisions that make it mandatory rather than optional for school buildings in a poor state of repair to be rebuilt and/or closed and consolidated. In addition to increasing equity, this approach will help ensure that state dollars are not inefficiently expended repairing outmoded schools because communities are reluctant to invest in full rebuilds.
5. Reimburse for the educational use of co-located facilities and offer incentive points to encourage agencies to bridge silos. Current MSBA policies discourage school districts from bridging silos and optimizing the use of public land and facilities by incorporating municipal libraries, recreation centers, senior centers, community health centers, adult basic education centers, and other such community uses in their schools and school complexes. The legislature can address this shortcoming by requiring the MSBA to reimburse for the share of these spaces utilized by students, and awarding incentive points to encourage communities to undertake the challenging work of coordinating across systems.
6. Help urban districts build regional magnet schools that increase racial and economic integration. Massachusetts has a long history of providing additional resources for schools designed to promote integration. This practice was abandoned two decades ago, and schools have resegregated. Given that the concentration of low-income students and students of color in high-poverty schools is likely the largest single source of wide and growing achievement gaps in Massachusetts, and the state’s highly segregated schools deprive all students of the benefits of integration, Massachusetts needs a school-building formula that provides very strong incentives to prioritize integration. As school districts statewide grapple with declining enrollment, a strong magnet school strategy could also help ensure more efficient and equitable utilization of resources as communities work to right-size their school facilities portfolios.
7. Provide greater support for feasibility studies, master plans, and long-term stewardship. Many urban districts struggle to develop accurate cost estimates in the initial stages of a project. As they learn more about the scope and site, cost estimates typically escalate considerably. State resources for feasibility studies can help communities mitigate this challenge. Urban districts with large school portfolios also struggle to produce and implement master facility plans. State planning grants, coupled with requirements that communities produce and adhere to a master plan, could help ensure that communities make consistent and responsible capital investments in their school facilities. Finally, buildings with state-or-the-art systems are much more challenging to operate and communities must properly maintain them. The state can provide both funding and accountability to help cities steward these long-term investments.