School districts and developers working together on new schools in new communities is the norm for many California communities. However, the emerging strategy of developers constructing those schools or fully funding the construction of schools can place both school district and developer in unknown territory when it comes to bidding, district standards, substitutions, cost overruns, change orders, changes based on district wants, and state funding. This presentation features the experiences of school districts and developers that have constructed developer-built elementary, middle, and high schools. 20p.

Reports on the increase in public/private partnerships to fund infrastructure needs, describing the benefits and challenges of these mechanisms. For school construction, the typical models for private financing are cited, as are the experiences of the United Kingdom, which has the world's largest and most advanced public-private partnership program. Recent advances in state legislation alternative financing for school construction are noted. 42p.

This bill authorizes North Carolina's local boards of education to enter into capital leases of real or personal property for use as school facilities. A capital lease entered into under this section may provide that the private developer is responsible for providing, or contracting for, construction, repair, or renovation work. The bill was signed into law on July 19, 2006.

Provides guidance for submission and completion of projects under Virginia's Public-Private Educationl Facilities and Infrastructure Act.The intent of this statute is to provide a vehicle for Virginia's state and local agencies to create public-private partnerships to meet a wide range of infrastructure needs, including such as construction and renovation of elementary and secondary schools, as well as higher education facilities. The Virginia Act is structured to reduce the time and money spent by the submission of projects to extended boards of review, encourage entrepreneurial activity on the part of the private sector, tailor a project to the particular needs of the user, and encourage the innovative use of tax-exempt and taxable project financing. 31p.

Describes seven types of public/private partnerships used for school construction, provides examples of where they have been implemented, and lists pros and cons of these partnerships. Includes nine references. 7p.

The City Heights Redevelopment Project Area comprises various community planning areas focusing on education and beautification of the community. The City Heights Urban Village has recreated the core of the City Heights community, establishing a pedestrian-friendly town square with important City facilities and centers of learning. The project has been a partnership of the City of San Diego, City's Redevelopment Agency, San Diego Foundation, CityLink Investment Corp., and Price Charities. Already completed are a library, performance area, recreation center, playing fields, police substation, public swimming pool, municipal gymnasium, elementary school, a retail center, and an adult learning center.

Briefly describes tax-exempt lease/purchase agreements as a means to finance improvements in school facility energy consumption. 1p.

Describes this special school featuring an integrated curriculum emphasizing science, mathematics and the use of technology, but remaining a neighborhood school for underserved groups of children and their parents. The school is sited part of the California Science Center complex and includes a new classroom building attached to a renovated armory that houses eight classrooms, administrative offices, a multi-purpose room, and the school library. Also housed in the former armory is the Science Center’s education division, the Amgen Center for Science Learning. This places the Science Center School adjacent to facilities that will house many of the Science Center’s community programs, summer science camp, camp-ins, and a teacher professional development program.

A fundraising consultant shows school leaders how to move away from labor-intensive, bake sales and car washes, and into the world of major fundraising. Following the model used by colleges and universities, the author presents practical strategies for supporting school finances by pursuing grants and gifts from corporations, foundations, the government, and individual donors. 208

Discusses the inadequacy of even the largest school bond revenues in addressing rapid growth in North Carolina school districts, advising instead that districts employ cost-effective construction, renovation, and maintenance solutions that are taxpayer-friendly and enhance educational opportunities. Public-private partnerships to finance new construction, adapting and reusing buildings, rethinking design standards, revising financing policies for stadiums and sports facilities, building modular schools, and using virtual schools are discussed, as are innovative project management techniques. 22p.

Describes awards from the U.S. Department of Education to the following: California Charter Building Fund (a consortium of the California Charters Schools Association and NCB Development Corporation); Illinois Facilities Fund; Indianapolis Charter Schools Facilities Fund (the Indianapolis Mayor's Office and the Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, in partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and JP Morgan Chase Bank); Texas Public Finance Authority (Charter School Finance Corporation, Texas Education Agency, and the Resource Center for Charter Schools); and the Philadelphia Reinvestment Fund Charter School Growth Fund.

Provides policy guidance and recommendations to officials and administrators at the state, local, and school district level to improve facilities funding. Policy recommendations cover long-term funding sources, the scope and form of funding relationship between state and local school districts, funding allocation for school building improvements and/or new construction and alternative financing methods. Best practices examples and a list of resources are also provided. 19p.

Position paper in support of public-private partnerships, outlining recommendations, background, trends, advantages, and case studies. Discusses municipal/capital leases and operating leases. 4p.

Provides a national directory of private nonprofit and public providers of funding and financing for charter school facilities. Based on research and interviews with over 50 charter school stakeholders, the survey includes descriptions of financing products and geographic markets for the 21 private nonprofit providers currently active in the sector. The report also describes two public-private partnerships that have recently been developed in Indianapolis and Massachusetts. Public initiatives are also detailed, including explanations of and awardee information for two federal grant programs, three federal tax credit/bond financing programs, and an listing of state-level funding, loan, and credit enhancement programs currently authorized in the 41 jurisdictions with a charter law. The report includes available web site and statutory references, with active links in the electronic version. 24p.

This looks at how parents, students, local residents, and community organizations are involved in the planning and development of school facilities, and identifies ways their participation can be expanded. Includes sections on the following: limited community engagement; transparency and participation in the capital planning process; typology of community engagement; and creating an open and innovative school facilities planning and development process. Provides eight case studies of community engagement in the New York area. 86p.

This describes the key characteristics of new markets tax credits, key issues in implementation, results so far, and their future potential. Includes a case study of how Excellent Education Development, Inc.(ExEd) used new markets tax credits to create facilities for charter schools in low income Los Angeles County communities. 63p.

Defines "public-public partnership" as a contractual agreement between a school district and another governmental agency, political subdivision, or institution of higher education to meet a clearly defined need for facilities, infrastructure, or goods and services. Authorizes any school district to use public-public partnerships as a project delivery method for the building, altering, repairing, improving, maintaining, or demolishing of any structure, or any improvement to real property owned by the school district. 2p.

Describes public-private partnerships and federal efforts for school modernization. 3p.

Describes steps for creating, implementing, sustaining and evaluating partnerships between schools and businesses. The recommendations are designed to help school and business leaders respond to opportunities and challenges that arise through longterm relationships. The publication begins with the preliminary steps of assessing need, potential contributors and their offerings, and the school's own internal strengths and core values. This is followed by steps for developing the partnership's core values, common ground, and shared vision. Steps for translating the values into action and maintaining the relationship follow. Also included are checklists and worksheets for accomplishing these steps. 25p.

This unique project brought together three partners – a school, a nonprofit community agency, and a city housing authority. Located on land within West Lawn housing complex owned by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Browning School and Silver Spring Neighborhood Center share a facility. Sections of the building are owned and operated by Milwaukee Public Schools, while other areas are leased by the City of Milwaukee Housing Authority to Silver Spring Neighborhood Center.

Public-Private Partnerships are created when public sector agencies join with private sector entitities, entering into a business relationship to share risk and benefits. This white paper discusses the increasing use of public-private partnerships in many areas, including education, and describes the keys to success in creating a partnership. Includes the types of P3 agreements, a glossary of terms, P3 process charts, and links to further information. 48p.

Presents the Commission's perspective on the British private finance initiative (PFI) to deliver well-designed public buildings (including schools), and considers what policy interventions are needed to remove the barriers to the delivery of design quality. 6p.

Briefly discusses creative use of school bond funds, public/private partnerships for school construction, prototype schools, and the value of design services in school construction. 3p.

Describes five options that the State of New Jersey and Abbott school districts can utilize to build schools, should the State enable it. These options represent various developmental criteria available to the State and school districts, depending upon the district's willingness and ability to undergo the building/construction process. Each of the five options describes the district's partnership with an outside county, municipal, or redevelopment agency, and some include project delivery suggestions as well. A one-page matrix for comparing the five options is included. 21p.

Reviews strategies that set the Celebration School outside of Orlando, Florida apart and are now being emulated by other systems: small schools within schools, integrated curriculum, personalized learning, offsite learning, and mainstreamed special education. Design examples that correspond to these concepts are provided. Celebration was funded by the Disney Development Corporation. 5p.

Describes increased spending on public school construction over the last decade, attributing it mostly to higher construction costs, a high-intensity replacement cycle for obsolete buildings, and the general will of citizens to spend more on school buildings. The nature and initial experiences of some British, American, and Canadian public/private partnerships for school construction are then described, followed by a review of federal and state legislation that assists with public/private development. Major financial and other benefits of public/private partnerships are illustrated, with detailed descriptions of types of agreements including developer-proffered schools, creating not-for-profit corporations, entrepreneurial partnerships, and community development districts. 25p.

Report of a subcommitee on the following issues: the physical and technical infrastructure needs of K-12 schools throughout Virgina; availability of local funding sources to meet those needs; public-private partnerships that may be available to meet a portion of those needs; the priority of each of those needs; the level of commitment by the Commonwealth to supplement local efforts in meeting those needs; the level of the Commonwealth’s debt capacity available over the next 10 years to assist with capital projects for K-12 schools; the appropriate bond structure, including issuer, type of debt obligation, period of time over which the debt should be issued, and potential revenue sources for repayment; and the method for prioritizing and distributing the proceeds. 5p.

A plan for the renovation of and improvements to the Nichols Avenue School building and site in the District of Columbia, for the future home of Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School. This "how-to" manual is designed for individuals interested in modernizing or building new public school facilities in their neighborhoods. Modeled after an innovative public-private development partnership, this tool details the importance of school facilities and community involvement, then explains the five basic steps to planning a new school or renovating an existing building: assessment, envisioning, planning, development and implementation. [Author's abstract] 46p.

Presents the results of two years work by this task force to examine the adequacy and equity of Maryland's public school construction program. The Task Force began with a facility assessment of all schools in the state, found deficiencies in every jurisdiction, and concluded that it will cost 3.85 billion dollars to bring all schools up to the minimum standard for educational programming, health, and safety requirements. It recommends that the state establish a School Emergency Repair Fund, with an initial investment of $2 million, to address deficiencies that present an immediate hazard. It also proposes funding levels, formulas, creative financing options, and changes to Maryland's school construction statutes. 58p.

This report outlines innovative ways school districts are meeting their facilities needs outside the traditional sources of facilities financing. Non-traditional funding strategies include private development of public school buildings, partnerships with employer-based schools, direct borrowing on the private market, and sale or lease of existing school facilities. Cost-saving solutions include space-sharing with community agencies or with higher education, and educating outside the school building using community resources or distance learning. New institutional solutions include establishing real estate trusts and intermediaries. Included are specific examples of how districts are implementing these strategies, and a list of additional readings on these topics. 16p.

In 1999, the Renton community, Renton School District, City of Renton, and Renton Community Foundation formed a unique partnership. The result is an example of private and public entities working together to make both tax and private dollars stretch in new and creative ways. A $500,000.00 pledge from IKEA secured naming rights. Other major funding came from voter-approved Renton School District revenue, the City of Renton, the Washington Building for the Arts Program, the Boeing Company, Renton Rotary, Alex and Norma Cugini, First Savings Bank of Renton, King County Journal Newspapers, King County Arts Commission, Kreielsheimer Foundation and the PACCAR Foundation. The new center includes a wrap-around lobby, spacious dressing rooms, a 35 foot fly space, restrooms, on-site parking, and parking in the new municipal parking garage. 2p.

"This bill establishes the Maryland Public Education Facilities Act to: 1) encourage the use of alternative financing mechanisms, private capital, and other funding sources for the construction and improvement of public school facilities; 2) accelerate and improve the financing for qualified education facilities; and 3) provide public and private entities with the greatest possible flexibility in contracting with others." Includes descriptions of the provisions concerning issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds, procurement methods, use of surplus land, and model procedures and recommendations. 6p.

Examines a variety of options for public-private partnerships in school facilities financing. Methods of structuring the debt and partnering for construction are illustrated with case studies. Issues with state and local governments are cited, along with ideas for creative occupancy partnerships and the prudent management of facilities created by these partnerships. 23p.

Describes the inception and realization of this revered community school created within a restored 1911 St. Paul, Minnesota, high school building, and combined with an adjoining new YMCA facility. The community collaboration required for the condemnation of four homes and relocation of several businesses is described, along with the results of these moves. Restoration and renovation of the deteriorated high school, the design of the YMCA, and the naming process for the new facility are discussed. 42p.

This is a selected list of articles, books, and web sites covering the subject of combined and joint-use libraries. It covers the two most common types of combined libraries: public libraries combined with school library media centers and public libraries combined with academic libraries.

Presents an outline of alternative school funding, including a description, pros, and cons for each. The methods described are impact fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, proffers, grants and donations, lease/purchase arrangements, performance-based contracting, public-private partnership, commercial development schools. Also included are descriptions, pros, and cons of the five project delivery methods: Construction Management, Construction Management At-risk, Design-Build, Job-Order Contracting, and Finance-Design-Build. 10p.

The North Santiam School District stretched $350,000 into $1.2 million to upgrade antiquated school buildings by implementing energy-saving lighting, heating, and control projects, thereby qualifying for Oregon's SB1149 public purpose funds, and by using a tax credit pass-through option, made possible with a partnership with Nike, an Oregon-based shoe, apparel, and sports equipment manafacturer. 5p.

Price Charities is funding an educational initiative that partners the San Diego State University School of Education, three City Heights Public Schools and the local teachers union to create a learning laboratory to improve education. The three local schools, Rosa Parks Elementary School, Monroe Clark Middle School and Hoover High School, operate as "community schools" wherein the school provide comprehensive health and social services.

Reviews the United Kingdom's Private Finance Initiative by comparing 17 PFI schools with 12 traditionally-funded schools. The report found that the quality of school buildings built via traditional funding was, on average, better than the early PFI schools and that there was little evidence of design innovation in PFI schools. There was no clear-cut difference between PFI or traditionally funded schools in construction or operating costs. Cleaning costs appeared to be higher in PFI-funded schools, possibly reflecting higher standards. While PFI-funded school projects did not at the outset appear to outperform traditionally funded ones, the report maintains that the results for PFI-funded schools are not necessarily negative, considering that the projects studied were the very first to be constructed under the program. 55p.

This discusses several innovative ways to fund school construction using public-private partnerships, including municipal/capital lease plans, operating lease plans, a service contract structure, and a satellite concept. This is section of the "School Director's Handbook" which addresses a range of issues of interest to school directors, teachers, and parents and are intended to promote discussion about educational alternatives. 6p.

Much like office buildings that house several companies, a school building can house several autonomous schools, each with their own administration, faculty and budgets. This toolkit describes examples of schools sharing buildings in Chicago, and gives practical advice for how to do this successfully. Recommendations include: establish a commitment to shared equitable space; build and maintain stong working relationships; support school identity and autonomy with visual cues; plan for the future with a memorandum of understanding; develop a conflict resolution process; capitalize on the benefits of building sharing. 23p.

Qualified Public Education Facility Bonds (QPEFs) are a potential funding mechanism for both charters and public schools. QPEFs are a type of exempt facility bond created under section 422 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. QPEFs allows state or federal agencies to enter into a public-private partnership with a for-profit organization, under which the for-profit agrees to construct, rehabilitate, refurbish or equip a public school facility. The bond proceeds are loaned to a private, for-profit corporation (developer) who owns the school facility and leases it to a public school. At the end of the lease term, ownership of the school facility is transferred to the public school for no additional consideration. This information packet includes; 1) IRS technical information on QPEFs; 2) a reprint of the Heritage Foundation report "How Public-Private Partnerships Can Facilitate Public School Construction" by Ronald Utt, and 3) IRS Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues. 30p.

This paper attempts to identify benchmark considerations when entertaining the question of private management of public school facilities. Management possibilities include contracting for services and charter conversion. The paper also highlights elements of contract law pertinent to formal agreements made between school districts and private providers. In the early stages of doing business with private providers, care must be taken to control the spin of public opinion. Building support for reform efforts is an incremental process requiring a constant flow of factual information, anecdotal evidence, and independent research findings. Emphasis must be placed on beginning contract negotiations early in the process to ensure that all provisions are artfully crafted and meet with broad acceptance--particularly important when negotiating how those provisions affect existing labor agreements. The paper includes a suggested list of contract contents, starting with recitals/preamble; definitions; establishment or determination of school sites; term of agreement and starting date; mission statement; goals, objectives, and pupil performance standards; and financial arrangements, among other provisions. This list provides a starting point for drafting the contract between school authorities and a school management vendor.

Describes three non-traditional methods of funding school construction: 1) construction/leaseback, where developers build schools and lease them to the school system, but retain ownership; 2) local incremental sales tax option for schools (LISTOS), where local jurisdictions levy a sales tax, with a portion of the revenue being contributed into a fund for needier jurisdictions which lack the sales base for such a program; 3) innovative partnerships, where systems join with other community or commercial interests to create learning spaces. 8p.

Presents a community redevelopment model that proposes partnering with an "intermediary" organization to engage in predevelopment project planning that leverages bond financing for a variety of community infrastructure projects, with schools at the heart of the strategy. The advantages of organizing redevelopment around new schools are described. 32p.

Examining the trend toward an older U.S. population, this publication discusses why educators and school facility planners should consider designing multipurpose schools that specifically contribute to stronger intergenerational links. Reasons include: ending age segregation, enriching the lives of children and seniors, creating support for public education, and keeping seniors healthy and learning. The twelve-page publication also discusses the challenges and opportunities of such efforts, including the diversity of retirees, issues of joint venture, funding, cost savings, accessibility, finding space, using space wisely, giving new life to historic school buildings, security, and staffing. The publication includes numerous case studies and fifteen references. 12p.

Presents principles designed to help educators and business leaders develop relationships that support mutual goals, and offer long-term, sustainable benefits for students and schools. The principles were derived from interviews conducted with nearly 300 school board members, superintendents and other school administrators, and more than 50 executives representing large, medium and small businesses. The resulting eight principles are enumerated and illustrated with case studies. Includes 12 references. 30p.

This manual is intended to be used by parents, teachers, school administrators, students, community organizations and residents as a guide to identifying, planning, implementing, and maintaining large- and small-scale school improvement projects. Its sections address: (1) key terms and concepts; (2) types of school improvement projects; (3) creating the school improvement partnership; (4) planning a school improvement project--getting started; (5) planning a school improvement project--design; (6) school improvement project implementation; (7) marketing and promoting a school improvement project; (8) findings funds and volunteers; (9) school improvement project tools (preliminary school assessment tool, consensus tool, site selection tool, implementation planning tool, fundraising plan tool); and (10) case studies of a small project (Bladensburg High School sign) and a large project (Shadyside Elementary School master plan). 24p.

This paper asserts that instead of assuming that the future of learning has to take place in buildings we happen to have now, districts can let innovations in instruction and learning drive how they provide, design, and use school buildings. With this goal in mind, this paper looks at five trends in education and what they imply about the kinds of buildings and spaces districts will need for tomorrow’s schools. The five trends are: (1) pressure on schools to perform for all students, not just those who learn best in traditional settings; (2) demands for the personalization of learning, so that every child has a chance to learn and families have choices; (3) new technologies that will change how teachers teach and students learn; (4) periodic shortages of teachers (and school leaders) linked to swings in the economy; and (5) shifts in student population and residency patterns that will affect not only the demand for schools, but also the demands on schools. Suggested strategies include developing smaller schools, sharing buildings between multiple schools, adapting facilities for both commercial and educational uses, and partnerships with companies and organizations outside the education sector. The paper also includes an extensive case study on the high school built by the public-private partnership of the Niagara Falls City School District and Honeywell, Inc. The case study includes specifics on the financing deal, the flow of funds, tax strategies, and risk management. 29p.

In December 1998, New York State passed charter legislation allowing 100 new charter schools and an unlimited number of public schools to convert to charter status. The charter law has provided "discount funding," prohibited charter schools from using public-sources funds for facility purchase or improvement, and added managerial responsibilities on the principals. Consequently, charter schools in New York City had to seek out sources of support in the form of institutional partners and/or friend organizations. This study was conducted to examine and track such relationships between 14 New York City charter schools having various types of relationships with partnering organizations. Open-ended interviews were conducted with school administrators, teachers, and representatives of participating organizations. Results show that partnering organizations are smaller systems, are more responsive, and provide greater efficiency in a more personal manner compared with support structures for traditional public schools. However, intervention of institutional partners challenged charter schools' administrators' authority and affected school governance. Implications are that if funding for charter schools does not increase, then reliance on partnering organizations will also increase. It would be prudent for educators and policymakers to consider how the implementation of charter law can affect school-level decision-making and charter schools' autonomy. 15p.

Nonprofit organizations, private foundations, and for-profit corporations interested in shaping public education regularly partner with charter schools in New York. State law allows charter schools to pursue external partners to help meet their fiscal, facilities, operational, and instructional needs. This qualitative study of 10 schools in New York City examines how the relationship between charter school and external partner affects school autonomy and the school's relationships with teachers, parents, and community members. Data were collected through interviews with school staff and representatives of partner organizations, and through observations of meetings, daily school operations, and school-related events. The samples studied suggest that the fiscal and operational burdens of running a charter school necessitate affiliation with an institutional partner. However, partnering brings its own set of problems, particularly unclear authority and accountability. The study reveals that a school's decision-making authority is limited, and its relationships with teachers, parents, and community members can become complicated when issues of authority and accountability are not absolutely clear. The study concludes that when institutional partners do not involve teachers, parents, and community members in creating a vision for the school, the potential for tension among the various stakeholders remains high.

The case studies in this booklet highlight how five communities, in big cities and small towns, overcame the obstacles inherent in creating good new schools in existing neighborhoods. There is mounting evidence that small schools provide a better quality education than large ones. Among the obstacles faced in establishing new schools in old areas are: (1) school building standards, codes, and regulations; (2) difficulty in acquiring land; (3) districts have lost the skill to build schools; and (4) building “greenfield” schools is more familiar. The Oyster School in Washington, D.C., is an example of a school modernized through parent efforts when the school system was not able to find the funds for improvement of the facility. Sharing the existing space with an apartment building, at the cost of some space, resulted in a renovated school. In Pomona, California, a school was built at the site of a mall and vacant supermarket. A magnet-type school was built in Dallas, Texas, on the last piece of undeveloped land near a multifamily apartment complex. Two public academies were established in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, to attract children whose parents work in town and ensure that both the academies were filled to capacity. Rebuilding on the site of an old school was the solution for Manitowoc, Wisconsin, as it worked to meet the needs of a neighborhood. Some other examples of noteworthy approaches to new schools for old communities are briefly outlined. 20p.

This report presents case studies illustrating successful public-private financing of school construction. The efforts occurred in Canada, Florida, South Carolina, New York, the District of Columbia, and Texas. The case studies are offered to encourage policy makers in Virginia to consider such an approach to meet the state's school construction needs. The report concludes that public-private development has shown dramatic results in terms of time saved, money saved, final product, and completion of projects that traditional financing could not support. 17p.

This report describes a provision in a tax bill implemented in June 2001 that allows towns and cities to build public school facilities faster, better, and less expensively by forming public-private partnerships with qualified real estate investors and developers. Private sector investors can fund construction, then lease the facilities to public school systems at annual costs below the costs communities would incur if they built the schools themselves. Benefits of public-private partnerships include more timely school construction, lower costs through competition, and savings through maximum use of school facilities. Communities benefit from off-hour use of school facilities (e.g., for day care services, supplemental education programs run by private organizations, adult education programs, civic events, and religious events). Because the concept of public-private partnerships for school construction and ownership is flexible, various other innovative subcontracting arrangements could be devised to help address a community's educational and service needs (e.g., using the partnership approach to acquire state-of-the-art music facilities, to upgrade cafeteria kitchens, or to improve sports facilities). The report presents experiences with such partnerships in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It describes partnership schools as alternatives to smart growth restrictions. 10p.

Develops a model for a cooperative, joint-use educational center to meet the future needs of California. Based on case studies of two such existing educational centers in Denver, Colorado and Yuma, Arizona, and on a case study of a developing center in Tracy, California, seven key elements critical to the successful design and implementation of such educational centers were identified. These seven elements are: 1) partners; 2) people; 3) planning; 4) politics; 5) property; 6) “pence” (funding); and 7) policies/procedures. 183p.

This publication describes the creation of a new school building for James F. Oyster Bilingual Elementary School in Washington, DC. Despite the success of its academic program, the school's 70-year-old building had become unsafe and unsuitable for teaching and learning and was threatened with closure in 1993 because of the district's fiscal crisis. This publication discusses how the 21st Century School Fund, working with the Oyster Community Council (the school's PTA), the local school restructuring team, the principal, and neighborhood residents, formed a public-private partnership that saved the school and increased city revenue. The District of Columbia agreed to divide the school property in half to make room for a new school and a new residential development. They also agreed to dedicate property taxes and revenue from the sale of the land to repay a revenue bond. In exchange, LCOR, the private developer of the new 211-unit apartment building, agreed to design and build a new school and repay the Oyster revenue bond. 8p.

Provides guidance to those involved in delivering new schools through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). It concentrates on how to place design at the heart of the process and draws on evolving good practice that the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is developing through work with local education authorities. It is intended for use by all those involved in PFI schools projects: local education authorities, teachers, contractors, local authority design champions and design teams. 32p.

This paper reports on a larger study that described public/private school partnerships throughout the U.S. The study described collaborations in terms of their goals, organizational structure, support, commonalities and differences, and evaluations. The present essay discusses how these partnerships provide a model for understanding what contributes to partnership success and successful characteristics of public/private school partnerships. The paper examines characteristics of corporate/school partnerships, university/school partnerships, and public/private school partnerships. It discusses how types of partnerships (cooperation, coordination, and collaboration) influenced the success of public/private partnerships. It found that highly structured collaborations contributed to a higher degree of mutuality among members. Collaborations lead to successful environments, fewer restrictions to success, and the most positive responses to restrictions. The predominant restriction to creating a successful partnership environment was the tension caused by the differences in cultural norms. The most common characteristic effective in offsetting tension created by these differences was the desire to break down pre-existing stereotypes among those coming from diverse backgrounds. Collaborations were more likely to express the desire to fell barriers and destroy myths about the other partner's environment than the other two partnership types. 29p.

This study examines the management and outcome of the public- private partnerships (P3s) school construction project used in the Auguston housing development in Abbotsford, British Columbia to build a traditionally designed elementary school. The study explored the relationship between the project's major players, the fiscal incentives that drove the project and the risks and responsibilities assumed by key stakeholders, project chronology, and outcome analysis. It is revealed that the P3 methodology allowed the school to be constructed in only 12 months, at 10 percent below that achieved by conventional procurement, and accomplished within standard building specifications. Outcome analysis demonstrates the P3 methodology can be used to build public schools at lower cost, freeing public dollars for other uses, and the viability of the Design/Build option. Interviews with the participants reveal a need for extra time to work with the various partners and the need to comprise. 50p.

This website considers various issues related to Public Private Partnerships in general and P3 School construction in Nova Scotia specifically. It includes links to a collection of interviews, news releases and studies on "Public Private Partnerships"; identifies the steps in P3 School Construction; and lists the private sector partners involved in the P3 construction projects.

This report focuses on business partnerships with schools. Supporters of school-business partnerships point out many potential benefits to schools, students, businesses, employees, and the community at large, while critics warn against the harmful effects of what they term "schoolhouse commercialism." Topics addressed include corporate sponsorships, school-to-career activities, corporate involvement with technology use in the classroom, protection of students' privacy, commercialism on the Internet used in the classroom, ethics of commercial activities in schools, and partnership building. Sidebars augment the text with salient examples regarding market research and federal policy on the protection of human subjects, Milwaukee's education policies on school-business relationships, federal laws protecting student privacy, and policy guidelines for technology use in the classroom. To augment public funding for public education, educators are "selling" commercial access to their students. As businesses develop new strategies of gaining access to schools, schools need very clear district policies that address the legal and ethical complexities of school-business relationships. (Contains 28 references.)

This report examines the relationship between philanthropy (gifts and grants provided by private foundations and business concerns)and public schools in five states -- Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The study describes how much support goes to public schools; how it is distributed; who gets the money; for what types of activities; which are the most active grant makers and what are their characteristics; and the role SEDL can play in providing research-based information or other services for philanthropic organizations. The study found that philanthropy for K-12 public education is growing, but also that the realities of grant makers' priorities, varying philosophies, and charter restrictions establish a context in which the distribution of funds is erratic, dollars don't necessarily flow to districts that have high concentrations of impoverished students with poor academic performance, and anomalies can have unintended consequences. Further, it appears that schools are most successful in gaining philanthropic support from local donors for coherent, strategic initiatives and/or when the schools have staff with assigned responsibility for fund-raising.

This document examines three locations that schools have utilized in partnership with private enterprises to help ease school overcrowding: downtown areas, airports, and malls. The downtown model serves students whose parents work in a downtown area. The mall model targets high school students who want an alternative education with job training. The airport model provides a school with space on airport grounds so that students of airport employees can attend school. These initiatives help local school districts save funds that would otherwise be used to construct facilities, freeing up resources for other district needs. Students benefit from smaller class sizes and unique educational opportunities afforded to them by the school location and interaction with local businesses. Students and parents also benefit from the creative scheduling that the schools offer by working around the parents' schedules. 19p.

Examines the areas of local jurisdictional cooperation required for successful new school planning that also benefits community development. Reviews responsibilities shared by local municipal governments and school districts. Explains the areas of mandated responsibility for each jurisdiction and the relationship between the two major players on the local level of government. Addresses the difficulties of collaborative planning, including technical difficulties such as budget cycle differences, fiscal dependency, lack of coordination and planning impetus, and social and political difficulties. Also discusses planning issues involving a new school's impact on land use within the community. Several examples of successful new school planning collaborations are described, followed by descriptions of three collaboration models, which cover an area of rapid growth and a higly-populated but settled area. 50p.

Asserting that as Georgia moves into the 21st century, its public education sector must examine alternative means of utilizing and sharing buildings and facilities, this paper explores the alternatives to relying on taxes alone to meet the ever-increasing needs for additional and improved school buildings, as well as ways to reduce the need for more schools and classrooms. The discussion focuses on three major topics: privatization, more effective facility utilization and sharing, and technology. 32p.

This strategy brief presents general principles and strategies for financing facility improvements and highlights five examples of innovative strategies, including: (1) accessing school construction dollars; (2) using grants and donations; (3) accessing low-cost debt; (4) engaging partners to jointly develop facility improvement projects; and (5) generating revenue through the tax and building codes. These strategies illustrate the importance of thinking broadly and creatively about the range of resources available in the community, combining financing strategies appropriate to project objectives, engaging a variety of public and private sector partners, leveraging funds from non-traditional sources, and persevering through long and intensive planning and implementation processes. 20p.

The purpose of this study was to describe strategic practices (defined as priority-based actions) used in the development of joint-use agreements for educational facilities between California public school districts and community entities, as well as both impeding and supportive elements. A cross-case analysis of the efforts and experiences of seven California school facility practitioners was crafted. The study identified major findings as metathemes that were operationally described. Six metathemes of strategic practices were identified relative to aspects of cooperation, perseverance, collaboration, entrepreneurialism, synergy, and resourcefulness. Six metathemes described barriers to joint-use relative to aspects of territorialism, use/access conflicts, bureaucracy, limited finances, collaboration, and top-level support. Four metathemes described supportive elements to joint-use, including institutionalized belief, productive relationships, strong reputations, and support from top-level leadership. An annotated compendium of successful joint-use projects in included, as well as a list of network resources utilized by the researcher. [Online access to excerpt from this dissertation available at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/joint-use.pdf] 418p.

An audiotape explains an Iowa rainforest project that promotes experiential learning for children, and explores the effects of the physical environment on the brain. The project is a one-of-a-kind private/public partnership that has created a fully integrated, seamless educational facility that combines a public school (prekindergarten through fifth grade), teacher development/training center, rain forest (five acres), aquarium and mixed-media, and a large screen theater. It is suggested that the school's great drawing power and the profit it generates will allow the combination rain forest/public school facility to be self-supporting without an ongoing tax subsidy. 0p.

Examines the specific elements and component language of sixty-seven joint-use agreements that were submitted to the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) as part of the application process for California's Proposition 203 Joint-Use Program. Based upon the research findings, a written agreement should include ten basic elements: 1) description of ownership; 2) entity that has prime responsibility in cases of disputes; 3) indemnification clause; 4) maintenance and repair of the facility; 5) description of the operation of the shared project; 6) authority for signatures; 7) modifications to the agreement; 8) set terms for the use of the shared project; 9) insurance of the shared project; and 10) venue for actions. 160p.

This paper was prepared as an outgrowth of a Getty Center symposium sponsored by New Schools Better Neighborhoods (NSBN) and its partner organizations in May 1999. The subject of joint use, generically meaning the development of K-12 education facilities in combination with other facilities such as parks or libraries, was broached at the Getty Symposium as one of several means of accelerating and enhancing new school construction. Accordingly, a working group was formed under the guidance of NSBN with the charge to research, evaluate, and formulate recommendations regarding joint use. This is the first in a series of products prepared by the Joint Use Working Group. The paper is an overview of the subject and a point of departure for further study. It discusses the benefits of joint use, such as additional student housing, cost savings, and community enrichment programs and services, as well as its constraints, such as conflicting or non-aligned goals of the partners, operations and maintenance issues, and regulatory constraints. Also explored are themes of joint use, such as the school district as community developer, leveraging community goals, and adaptive re-use of existing structures. 7p.

This guidebook assesses the feasibility and potential impact a specialized lending program might have on the capital needs of community-based child and family services. It explains the need for quality facilities and how physical space can affect child care quality and the program's impact. Also described are the problems associated with capital loans for these services and examines how facilities loan funds directly improve access to credit and how they can have broader indirect impact on the level of capital investment in community programs. Types of loan funds are examined, as are the characteristics of a lender's capital structure, lending policies, several start-up strategies, and capitalization loan strategies used by other institutions. 34p.

Provides examples of joint-use projects, joint-use analysis and recommendations, and joint-use policies from throughout California and the nation.

This handbook informs school personnel and the business community about the opportunities available to assist rural community's efforts in revitalizing their education systems.The handbook's first two sections examine the different funding sources available for school improvement programs and loan eligibility, and discusses the benefits lenders can realize when providing these loans. The third, and final, section details the components of the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB) financing tool covering eligibility criteria, the required business pledges, how to quality for a QZAB, tax treatments, and benefits to lenders. An example of a QZAB success story is also provided. An addendum lists examples of different community facilities programs. 25p.

Many government, university and school district officials are structuring creative public/private partnerships with private developers to finance, design, develop, construct and sometime operate needed public facilities and commercial developments throughout the United States. This book provides detailed coverage of the complex process involved in taking a real estate project fr