School enrollment is declining. Budgets are shrinking. Faced with these realities, more and more school districts are choosing to renovate rather than replace existing schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2006, the American Association of School Administrators<\/a> polled 14,692 school districts and found that over half were experiencing declines in enrollment. Enrollment decline is often most acute where school buildings tend to be the oldest. Recent studies show that of the nearly 100,000 public schools in the United States, 76% of them need repair, renovation, and modernization. The average school is 42 years old and was not designed to meet the demands of current or future technology and in some cases fails to meet basic health and safety codes. School districts throughout the country are faced with the challenge of teaching students with less per capita funding in old buildings that lack access to technology or areas for individual or small group instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why are school districts choosing to renovate rather than replace tired facilities that are well past their prime?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2004, the Michigan Land Use Institute studied what they called an \u201cunfortunate trend\u201d in school construction decisions in Michigan. The institute examined the state\u2019s new school construction boom and asked whether building bigger, newer schools is always best for students and communities. They concluded that new school construction can raise tax, economic, and community stability issues with long-term consequences. \u201cIn every case we studied, building a new school cost more than renovating an older one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n