Undervalued Assets: School Buildings and the Case for Investment

School design matters. Anyone who has attended a ribbon cutting for a new or renovated school has seen it. Students who have spent years learning in temporary or outdated classrooms suddenly walk into a bright new campus. Teachers talk about collaboration spaces, daylight, acoustics and air quality. Parents speak with pride. Most educators intuitively believe these environments matter. The challenge has always been proving it. New research, Investing in California’s School Facilities: How Local General Obligation Bonds Shape Student Outcomes commissioned by the California School Facilities Research Institute (CSFRI) and conducted by Paul Beach, Associate Partner and Sophie Zamarripa, Senior Policy Analyst at Bellwether, a nonprofit strategic consulting firm, and published in March 2026 marks an important shift in how we think about school facilities. This research, known as the Bellwether study analyzed bond measures in 66 California school districts between 2009 and 2019 and provides some of the strongest evidence yet that strategically investing in school facilities influences student achievement.

What the Study Found

• Bond-funded facility investments improved student achievement.
• Gains emerged four to six years after bond approval.
• Benefits equated to roughly three to four months of additional
• learning.º¹
• Effects were largest in under-resourced communities.

By comparing districts where bonds narrowly passed with those where they narrowly failed, the Bellwether study was able to separate the effects of facility investment from other factors that influence student achievement. The findings move the conversation about school facilities from intuition toward evidence, establishing a causal relationship between capital investment and educational outcomes.

Paul Beach, states, “Our findings closely align with earlier research in California and nationally, from when districts increase capital spending after passing bonds, to the delayed improvements in student achievement, to the size of those gains, and the par ticularly strong benefits in lower-income districts. Together, these findings add to the growing body of evidence that investments in school facilities can improve student achievement.”

The benefits, though not immediate, are consistent with the realities and limitations of capital delivery, unfolding over a multi-year timeline required to plan, design and construct new learning environments. This reframes school facilities as more than background infrastructure; they become a domain of evidence-based investment. It is precisely this gap between intuition and evidence that the CSFRI was founded to address, advancing research and developing tools that allow districts and policymakers to make more informed, performance-driven decisions on the best ways to invest in schools. The findings reposition facility investments from a cost of housing students to a strategic lever districts might use to improve educational outcomes.

Why Facilities Affect Learning

Communities rightfully scrutinize how their tax dollars are invested in education. Decisions about funding teachers, programs, equipment and facilities often spark debate about how limited resources can best support students. Schools and districts must address diverse opinions on the best ways to leverage limited dollars for their students’ education.

While this study is not likely to completely consolidate public opinion, it gives those who advocate for educational facilities a new tool to discuss their value. With the Bellwether study, we now know that facilities are not an alternative to instructional investment; they are part of the infrastructure that enables great instruction to succeed. According to Dr. Mandy Epley, Superintendent of Navarro ISD in Seguin, Texas, “Our buildings are an extension of our educators, supporting experiential learning that improves student opportunities and outcomes.” We’ve heard of school buildings called the “third teacher,” and here’s a case for seeing the educational value of the physical infrastructure.

A new HVAC system may not look like an academic intervention, yet students learn differently in classrooms with good air quality, stable temperatures and fewer disruptions. Likewise, modern science labs, flexible learning spaces and improved instructional environments help teachers deliver curriculum more effectively. The research now provides evidence that these conditions contribute to measurable differences in student outcomes.

Understanding the Time Horizon: Long-Term Value Creation

The benefits of facility investment take time to emerge. Planning, design, approval and construction unfold over multiple years, and research shows that gains in student performance align with that timeline. Once achieved, those benefits persist across the lifecycle of the facility, positioning school buildings as long-horizon investments that continue to generate value for generations of students.

Every year a school remains in service, another generation of students benefits from improved learning conditions. The physical environment continues to support teaching and learning long after construction is complete. Research has also shown that stronger school performance is often reflected in surrounding property values, strengthening local tax bases, and contributing to community stability (Northern, 2022).

Capital Allocation: Better Questions, Better Decisions

The Bellwether research establishes a causal relationship between capital spending and student outcomes, but it does not answer every question. It demonstrates that facilities matter, while leaving important questions about which specific investments generate the greatest impact for future research.

For district leaders, architects and facility planners, this shifts the conversation. Historically, many funding discussions focused on cost, scope, and project delivery. Now there is an opportunity to ask investment questions intentionally around student achievement. How do facility conditions influence teaching and learning? What aspects of the built environment have the greatest effect on student experience? How should districts evaluate competing facility needs when resources are limited?

Tom Pace, Director of Facilities at San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD), wrestles with the same questions. “It is not enough to tell voters what we want to build; we must clearly explain why the work is needed, how priorities were established, where the dollars will go and what students and communities should expect in return.”

If facility conditions influence student outcomes, then deteriorating conditions may represent more than a maintenance concern; they may represent a performance risk. Deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, and underperforming learning environments create challenges that accumulate over time. A failing HVAC system, recurring roof leaks, unreliable building controls, or classrooms that are consistently uncomfortable create disruptions that affect both operations and the educational experience. According to Pace, “If investment in school facilities can help close educational gaps, then we have an obligation to act now. Modernizing or reconstructing a school can take years, which means every delay affects real students sitting in classrooms today.” Viewed through this lens, deferred maintenance is not simply a facilities problem—it is an educational risk that can influence long-term student success.

School facilities are often discussed in terms of what they cost to build, but less attention is paid to what it costs when districts postpone improvements. The consequences are not limited to buildings. Facilities affect learning continuity, staff experience, community confidence and the district’s ability to deliver on its educational mission. Resilient facilities help reduce that volatility. Investments that improve reliability and operational continuity help protect both educational outcomes and public investment. Viewed through this lens, facility investment is not simply about creating new assets. It is about protecting existing educational value and reducing the consequences of inaction.

Strategic Allocation: Equity as Effective Capital Deployment

One of the most compelling findings from the Bellwether research is that the impact of facility investment is not evenly distributed. The greatest gains often occur where conditions were previously the weakest. For district leaders facing difficult capital decisions, this finding carries important weight. It suggests that maximizing impact may not always mean distributing resources evenly. In some cases, the most effective allocation of capital is targeted investment in schools facing the greatest facility challenges.

At SBCUSD, Pace notes that “schools experiencing declining enrollment or lower performance receive less facility investment because fewer students attend them, yet inadequate facilities can be one of the conditions making it harder for those schools to attract families and improve outcomes.” He goes on to suggest that this is similar to the “approach we take through Multi-Tiered Systems of Support in the classroom. We do not provide the most support to students who are already performing at the highest level; we provide it where the need is greatest.”

For architects and facilities leaders, this creates a practical opportunity. Rather than beginning with a predetermined list of projects, planning processes can start by identifying where the greatest barriers to learning exist. Facility condition assessments, deferred maintenance inventories, user surveys, post-occupancy evaluations, and building performance data can help districts understand which environments are creating the greatest challenges for students and staff. The objective is not simply to identify what needs repair, but to understand where facility conditions may be limiting educational outcomes.

This perspective also encourages a different way of framing master planning discussions. Instead of asking, “What projects should we build?” districts can ask, “Where are students and teachers facing the greatest obstacles?” That shift can help align educational priorities, facility assessments, and capital planning around a common goal: improving the conditions that support learning.

The research does not provide all the answers, but it does suggest a valuable framework for decision-making. When resources are limited, prioritizing investments based on documented need, building performance, and user experience may be one of the most effective ways to maximize the impact of public investment.

From Research to Action: Stewardship of Public Impact

The significance of the Bellwether research extends beyond facility planning. It challenges stakeholders to think differently about how capital decisions are made. For district leaders, the research offers stronger evidence for prioritizing facility funding alongside other educational strategies. Today’s evidence does not replace that intuition that school design matters. It strengthens it, allowing leaders to align facility investments with measurable educational outcomes.

Facility investments affect more than student learning. They also shape how schools function as civic assets within their communities. Dr. Epley notes, “With each investment our community makes in our facilities, we affirm our commitment to provide learning environments that not only safely welcome families, students and staff to educational possibilities, but also emphasize our priority to maximize student performance in a place where the community gathers to proudly celebrate student achievement and our collective history.” It’s a reminder that schools serve these broader civic functions, intertwined with community identity.

For architects, planners, engineers, and facilities professionals, the findings create an opportunity to connect design and implementation decisions more directly to measurable outcomes. The broader implication is that school facilities can no longer be viewed solely as buildings to be maintained or projects to be delivered. They are part of the infrastructure that supports educational outcomes and community well-being.

As research continues to deepen our understanding of how facility conditions influence student success, the conversation will increasingly focus not only on how much districts spend, but on how effectively resources are deployed. The goal is not simply better buildings. The goal is better outcomes for students, staff, and communities.

In Summary

The Bellwether findings represent an important inflection point in the conversation about school facilities. For decades, practitioners believed that learning environments mattered. The emerging evidence now strengthens this case by demonstrating a measurable connection between facility investment and student achievement. That evidence creates an opportunity for a new conversation among district leaders, professionals, policymakers, and facility practitioners.

School buildings have always shaped learning. What is changing is our ability to demonstrate that impact and use it to make better decisions. Perhaps better said by Tom Pace, “Vision explains what is possible. Evidence gives communities a credible reason to believe in and invest in that vision.” The opportunity now is to act on that evidence. The question for district leaders, facility professionals and policymakers is no longer whether facilities matter, but how this evidence will influence the investment decisions in front of them. The districts that thrive in the decades ahead will not simply build new facilities; they will treat them as strategic tools, thoughtfully investing in environments that strengthen student success, community resilience, and long-term public value.