Alternative Sources of Funding - Boston Public Schools
Worked on a research project focused on identifying alternative funding sources for Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) capital planning beyond traditional channels.
The work began with a detailed analysis of both the City of Boston’s budget and the BPS budget to understand how projects are currently financed and the sources that support them. I then conducted a comparative study of peer school districts, examining how they fund capital projects and which of their strategies could be adapted to Boston’s context.
Based on this research, I developed and recommended a funding model tailored for BPS, outlining its feasibility and the reasoning behind its potential effectiveness.
Project Overview
Boston Public Schools (BPS) faces a critical challenge: ageing facilities, many over 70 years old, lacking modern learning spaces, and many facilities operate without air conditioning. Current capital planning depends on the City of Boston’s Budget, like property Taxes, General Obligation bonds and the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) reimbursements. This project explored how peer districts finance school infrastructure and identified funding strategies Boston could adopt.
Purpose
Review Boston’s city and BPS budgets to understand current capital funding.
Analyze five peer districts: Baltimore County (BCPS), District of Columbia (DCPS), Oakland (OUSD), Austin (AISD), and Prince George’s County (PGCPS).
Recommend alternative funding models that reduce reliance on traditional city and state sources.
Boston Context
Operating Budget FY25: $4.64B
Capital Budget FY25–29: $4.7B
Funding sources: MSBA reimbursements, City of Boston’s budget: Property Tax, General Obligation bonds, and Federal grants.
Connected to Boston’s Green New Deal, which prioritizes building decarbonization, electrification of school buses, and sustainable food purchasing.
Research Findings
Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS)
Historically underfunded, leading to a court case (Bradford v. Maryland, 1994).
2013 legislation enabled the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) to issue bonds for school modernization.
Shifted project delivery to MSA, bypassing internal bottlenecks.
Lesson for Boston: A quasi-public manager could accelerate project delivery.
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS)
Highly centralized: mayor controls both leadership and capital funding.
Six-year Capital Improvement Plan funded by ~$2B in general obligation bonds.
Managed by the Department of General Services (DGS), avoiding state intermediaries.
Lesson for Boston: A dedicated capital delivery agency and multi-year commitments improve predictability and speed.
Oakland Unified School District (OUSD)
Long history of fiscal instability, but strong voter-backed bond measures.
Major bonds: $435M (2006), $475M (2012), $735M (2020).
Independent Bond Oversight Committee ensures transparency.
Lesson for Boston: Regular bond cycles build trust and maintain visibility; citizen oversight strengthens accountability.
Austin Independent School District (AISD)
Bonds are the core funding source, with strong voter engagement.
Recent bonds: $489M (2013), $1.05B (2017), $2.44B (2022).
Community “Campus Architectural Teams” shape projects.
Lesson for Boston: Sequencing small repairs first builds credibility; tying capital upgrades to operational savings increases support.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS)
Pioneered a large-scale Public-Private Partnership (P3) program.
$800M bundled into a 30-year design-build-finance-maintain contract.
Private consortium ensures long-term upkeep; PGCPS focuses on education.
Lesson for Boston: P3S accelerates delivery, including maintenance, and embeds community benefits (internships, MWBE participation).
Recommendation
Boston Public Schools (BPS) currently relies heavily on general obligation bonds (76%), state and federal grants (16%), and MSBA reimbursements, which cover about 30% of project costs on average. However, the MSBA process is lengthy—often taking around five years—and does not guarantee funding for all projects.
To address these limitations, exploring alternative funding sources is essential. One viable option is to adopt public-private partnership (P3) models, similar to those used by Prince George’s County (PGCPS). In such a model, private partners would not only finance and build facilities but also assume long-term maintenance responsibilities.
Advantages of this approach
For BPS: Maintenance costs become predictable annual fees, improving budget stability and reducing strain on the General Fund.
For private partners: The agreement creates a stable, long-term revenue stream, increasing financial attractiveness and investment capacity.
The success of this model depends on clear contractual terms, particularly regarding maintenance responsibilities, performance standards, and lifecycle cost transfer, to ensure long-term value for BPS rather than hidden liabilities.
