International Organizations and Research Centers
Educational Infrastructure
Introduction
Large international and regional development finance institutions play a dual role in advancing education systems and school infrastructure. On one hand, they provide financial resources, through loans, grants, guarantees, and blended financing mechanisms, that enable governments to plan, build, modernize, and maintain educational facilities at a scale that would otherwise be difficult to achieve by the beneficiary countries.
On the other hand, they contribute extensive technical expertise by helping all kinds of stakeholders, national and local authorities identify priorities, develop policies, prepare feasibility studies, establish design and construction standards, strengthen procurement and project management processes, and evaluate results. By combining financial support with technical assistance, these institutions help ensure that investments in educational infrastructure are not only well funded but also carefully planned, efficiently implemented, environmentally responsible, and aligned with broader educational, social, and economic development goals.
Research centers, whether affiliated with universities or operating as independent organizations, play an equally important role by generating the knowledge needed to improve educational policies and learning environments. Through interdisciplinary research, field studies, pilot projects, and close collaboration with educators, architects, engineers, policymakers, and local communities, these institutions develop innovative ideas grounded in evidence and real-world experience.
Their strong connections with the communities they serve enable them to identify emerging needs, evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies and facilities, and propose practical solutions that reflect local cultures and conditions while drawing on good practices learned here and there. In doing so, they become essential sources of innovation, helping to shape more equitable, resilient, sustainable, and learner-centered education systems and school infrastructure.
The research produced by these institutions should also be understood for what it represents: rigorous, documented, and generally independent efforts to understand a problem, test assumptions, evaluate alternatives, and, in many cases, search for a new approach or even a novel solution to a perceived challenge. Unlike opinions, anecdotal experiences, or solutions promoted primarily because they are fashionable or politically attractive, well-conducted research is expected to subject its conclusions to systematic investigation and evidence. When such work is carried out by a respected university or research center, its institutional reputation and academic standards provide an additional level of credibility. This does not mean that every study is necessarily correct or that institutional prestige makes research infallible; rather, these studies constitute an important body of knowledge that deserves to be examined carefully before decisions are made.
There is also an important public dimension to this body of knowledge. Much of the research undertaken by universities, public research centers, and international or national institutions is financed, directly or indirectly, with public resources. Taxpayers, through government budgets and public institutions, frequently provide the resources that make such research possible. It is therefore only fair that the knowledge generated through these efforts should ultimately return to, and clearly benefit, the communities, public agencies, professionals, and decision makers whose needs helped motivate the research and whose resources helped support it. Research should not end with publication. Its findings, lessons, and practical implications should be accessible to those responsible for transforming knowledge into better policies, better projects, and better educational environments.
Yet an important obstacle remains: not every research center has the financial or institutional capacity to effectively disseminate its work. Some institutions may produce highly valuable studies but lack the budget, communications infrastructure, or international visibility necessary to promote them widely. As a result, information that could provide valuable guidance for an actual project may remain difficult to find, difficult to access, or virtually invisible to the professionals and public officials who could benefit from it.
This is particularly problematic because policymakers and government agencies are often burdened by immediate demands, political pressures, budgetary constraints, and day-to-day emergencies. Unless relevant research is made readily available to them in a form they can identify, access, understand, and apply, they may be forced to improvise solutions or, perhaps more seriously, repeat models whose effectiveness is uncertain or whose previous results have been less than successful. Making existing knowledge visible and accessible is therefore not merely an academic exercise; it is an essential step in reducing the distance between research and practice.
Every school building embodies a set of decisions made long before the first student walks through its doors. Decisions about classroom size, natural light, ventilation, acoustics, furniture, safety, and the countless small design choices that together shape whether a space helps or hinders learning.
Planners, architects, engineers, contractors, and school operators making these decisions rarely start from a blank page; they inherit decades of accumulated evidence, mistakes, and hard-won lessons from projects carried out in vastly different countries, climates, and budgets. Having this evidence organized and within reach is not a luxury; it is what separates a school built on assumption from one built on evidence.
The stakes of getting this wrong are considerable. A poorly ventilated classroom, an undersized library, or furniture that ignores ergonomic basics can quietly undermine years of curriculum reform and teacher training. Conversely, a growing body of research, from large-scale econometric reviews to controlled studies of daylighting and classroom design, shows that thoughtful infrastructure investment can measurably improve attendance, teacher retention, and academic achievement, particularly for the most disadvantaged students.
For professionals tasked with designing or renovating school buildings, having a solid, well-organized body of prior documentation at hand means not having to reinvent technical standards, safety protocols, or design rationales from scratch for every new project. It allows lessons learned in one region, whether a seismic retrofit program in Central Asia or a daylighting study in Colombia, to inform decisions elsewhere, shortening the distance between good intentions and good, sustainable buildings.
The bibliography presented below compiles books, studies, reports, project documents, guidance notes, and conference/workshop presentations addressing school construction, school infrastructure, educational furniture and equipment, and the impact of physical learning environments on educational outcomes. Sources are drawn from multilateral development banks, national and regional research centers, and academic bodies worldwide, and are organized alphabetically by topic under the sponsoring or authoring institution.
As a starting point, it brings together the published work, technical guidance, and research findings of:
- The World Bank
- The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
- The African Development Bank (AfDB)
- The Asian Development Bank (ADB)
- The European Commission
- The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
- CAF – Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean
- The 21st Century School Fund
- The National Center on School Infrastructure
- The Center for Cities + Schools (UC Berkeley)
- The Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH)
- The U.S. Green Building Council / Center for Green Schools, a recurring co-publisher across several of the reports above
- International academic research centers, including the University of Salford (Salford Centre for Research and Innovation), the University of Melbourne (Learning Environments Applied Research Network), and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- A number of Latin American university research centers studying school infrastructure and academic performance across the region
Taken together, these sources span multilateral development finance, national policy research, and academic inquiry, offering planners and designers a genuinely global cross-section of evidence, standards, and lessons learned.
Note on links: Where a document is not independently available online (e.g., cited only within another report’s bibliography, or an internal/unpublished conference document), this is indicated. All other links were verified as of the date of compilation below.
Note on updates: This compilation is deliberately presented as a starting point rather than a finished inventory. The literature on school infrastructure is vast, multilingual, and scattered across institutional repositories, and no single effort can capture it completely. Readers who are aware of additional studies, reports, or institutional publications that deserve a place in this bibliography are warmly invited to write to Alberto Treves at albertotreves@ed-space.com, so that this resource can continue to grow into a more complete and genuinely useful reference for everyone working to build better schools.
World Bank
Barrett, P., Treves, A., Shmis, T., Ambasz, D., & Ustinova, M. (2019). The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning: A Synthesis of the Evidence. International Development in Focus series. Washington, DC: World Bank.
This book presents the main findings drawing on 129 international studies on how school facilities affect children’s learning outcomes, identifying parameters that can inform the design, implementation, and supervision of future educational infrastructure projects. It examines accessibility, health and safety, and how physical design supports or inhibits specific teaching practices and community engagement. Also draws on a companion Russia-focused pilot using data collected through the OECD School User Survey and the pilot Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to analyze how school infrastructure and learning environments affect math and science outcomes.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/9ccd4228-5eb8-55a4-b0b4-fb51e26cdf79
Alasino, E., Martinez, A., Barrett, P., Ramirez, F., Shmis, T., & Teixeira, J. (2025). RIGHT+ Framework for Physical Learning Environments (PLEs): Guidance for Resilient, Inclusive, Green, Healthy, and Teaching and Learning-Conducive (RIGHT) PLEs Effectively Implemented (+). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Defines Physical Learning Environments (PLEs) at three levels: spaces, the school as a whole, and the network of education facilities. Proposes six strategies, characteristics, and attributes to help education practitioners diagnose PLE needs and design interventions—rehabilitating existing facilities or constructing new ones—in low- and middle-income countries. Frames PLEs as critical to addressing the global learning crisis, climate change, and increasing disaster risk, emphasizing entry points, synergies, and data-driven decision-making rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/8ee039b9-5a88-47b0-a38e-169c1146665b
Shmis, T., Ustinova, M., & Chugunov, D. (2020). Learning Environments and Learning Achievement in the Russian Federation. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Presents the main findings of a 2019 World Bank study on school learning environments and student outcomes in three regions of the Russian Federation, using data collected through the OECD School User Survey and the pilot TIMSS assessment. Analyzes how school infrastructure and learning environments affect progress in math and science, examines teaching practices, and highlights the nexus between learning environments and teaching methods, concluding with policy recommendations for educational authorities.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/9ccd4228-5eb8-55a4-b0b4-fb51e26cdf79
Alasino, E., & Laberenne, R. (2023). The Role of the Physical Learning Environment for Supporting Safe Schools. Washington, DC: World Bank.
A World Bank guidance note describing five characteristics of school safety—physical safety, mental health and well-being, instructional practices and environment, interactions and relationships, and school connectedness—and the role that Physical Learning Environments (PLEs) play in supporting each. Provides global strategies, resources, and case studies illustrating how countries have applied safe-school strategies, intended for policymakers, practitioners, school leaders, and teachers engaged in preparing infrastructure standards and projects.
Theunynck, S. (2009). School Construction Strategies for Universal Primary Education in Africa: Should Communities Be Empowered to Build Their Schools? Africa Human Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Examines the scope of the primary-school infrastructure challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa and the constraints to scaling up school construction at affordable cost. Reviews the experience of African countries with school planning, facility design, construction technologies, and construction management over three decades, and evaluates community-based construction as a cost-effective approach to achieving Education for All (EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4fc367f7-764e-5d58-8812-2ff2423c72b3
World Bank (2016). School Infrastructure and Learning Outcomes (brief/signposting document). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Notes that a 2011 review of the economics literature spanning 20 years found the availability of basic school infrastructure (classrooms, desks, chairs) and facilities (electricity, libraries, blackboards) frequently associated with better student learning achievement. These findings are corroborated by a systematic review of impact evaluations showing infrastructure investments positively affect enrollment, attendance, and learning achievement, with additional evidence from the Philippines that reducing students per classroom improves outcomes, particularly in rural schools.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/signposting/describedby/48b9f820-0f73-56d0-9eb7-89925930c2cd
Iglesias, P., Kotnik, J., Acevedo, K., Ambasz, D., Shmis, T., Ustinova, M., Chugunov, D., & Singh, D. (2024). Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction: Analysis of Off-Site Technology for the Construction of School Buildings. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Provides an overview of off-site construction as part of the broader family of modern methods of construction, examining its advantages, shortcomings, and application to school buildings. Reviews case studies and lessons learned, and explores whether off-site construction can meaningfully reduce the shortfall in educational infrastructure provision in low-income countries.
Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/c8e158b2-080a-4ee3-80d3-4d66671a6883/full
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) & Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), World Bank. Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction.
Developed collaboratively between INEE and GFDRR at the World Bank, in partnership with the Coalition for Global School Safety and Disaster Prevention Education, the IASC Education Cluster, and the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction. Provides technical guidance and case studies to support high-risk, low- and middle-income countries in mainstreaming disaster-risk reduction into school-construction planning and implementation.
Link: https://www.unisdr.org/files/11599_GuidanceNotesSafeSchools1.pdf
Barrett, P., & Barrett, L. (2016). Report on the Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Physical Condition of a Sample of Romanian Schools on Learning Outcomes. Romania: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
An empirical assessment linking the physical condition of a sample of Romanian schools to student learning outcomes, cited in the bibliography of the World Bank’s 2019 synthesis report as part of the evidence base connecting building condition to academic performance.
Link: Not independently available online; cited within source bibliography.
World Bank. Background Paper on School Infrastructure in the AFW Region.
Covers construction planning standards and norms, and Value-for-Money (VfM) analysis logic for school infrastructure investment in the West and Central Africa (AFW) region. Documents that the region comprises 22 countries with roughly half a billion people, mostly low- and lower-middle-income, and reviews the World Bank’s education-lending portfolio for infrastructure components across basic education, secondary education, TVET, and higher education.
Shmis, T., Ambasz, D., & Ustinova, M. (2018). “Opportunities for Collaboration for Ensuring Better Learning Environments for All Children.” Conference presentation, Paris, November 17, 2018.
A World Bank team presentation outlining the importance of the learning environment (referencing the World Development Report 2018: LEARNING to Realize Education’s Promise), an overview of World Bank education-infrastructure investment projects across regions (totaling roughly one billion U.S. dollars across sampled countries), and the connection to the OECD School User Survey (LEEP). Also references the then-forthcoming World Bank synthesis report on school infrastructure and learning.
World Bank (2024). “Why Education Infrastructure Matters for Learning.” World Bank Blogs.
A blog post arguing that buildings, classrooms, laboratories, and equipment are crucial elements of learning environments in schools and universities. Cites a UK study finding that environmental and design elements of school infrastructure together explained 16 percent of the variation in primary students’ academic progress, attributing this effect to three interrelated factors: naturalness (light, air quality), stimulation, and individualization.
Link: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/why-education-infrastructure-matters-learning
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
Duarte, J., Gargiulo, C., & Moreno, M. (2011). School Infrastructure and Learning in Latin American Elementary Education: An Analysis Based on the SERCE. IDB Technical Note IDB-TN-277. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Analyzes the relationship between school infrastructure and academic results using the SERCE regional learning-assessment data. Finds that the factors most strongly associated with learning outcomes are the presence of teaching-support spaces (libraries, science and computer labs), connection to electric and telephone utilities, and access to potable water, drainage, and bathrooms. Recommends that Latin American countries prioritize infrastructure investment to close gaps affecting rural areas, public-sector schools, and low-income students.
Inter-American Development Bank. Sufficiency, Equity and Effectiveness of School Infrastructure in Latin America according to TERCE. Washington, DC: IDB.
Discusses how the quality of student learning is determined by a combination of family, school, and system-level factors. Gives a prominent role to physical resources—school infrastructure and furniture—alongside teachers, school leadership, and learning-support resources such as books, teaching materials, and technology, using data from the TERCE regional learning assessment.
Duarte, J., Bos, M. S., & Moreno, M. School Infrastructure and Educational Outcomes. London School of Economics repository (IDB-affiliated research).
Distinguishes three types of school infrastructure: classroom-level infrastructure (furniture such as desks, basic materials such as blackboards, flip charts, and chalk, plus classroom libraries); school-level infrastructure (general building characteristics such as walls, floors); and network-level infrastructure. Reviews the literature on infrastructure’s link to learning outcomes and examines PISA trend data for seven Latin American countries from 2000 to 2012, noting stagnant or declining reading and math scores in most countries despite improvements in basic infrastructure availability.
Link: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/123331/1/63fdb139157dc.pdf
Robles, M., Näslund-Hadley, E., Ramos, M. C., & Paredes, J. R. Environmentally Friendly School Infrastructure. IDB Education Division, Module 3. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
A guidance module on climate-adapted, environmentally sustainable school building design in Latin America, addressing classroom comfort (temperature, ventilation, lighting), access to utilities (water, electricity, sanitation), and space for teaching, recreation, and cultural/sports development, with a checklist-style assessment approach for evaluating existing facilities.
Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB and Technology in Education: How to Promote Effective Programs? Washington, DC: IDB.
Identifies the infrastructure elements needed to support effective use of technology in education, including electricity, adequate physical space, furniture, security measures, and efficient internal networks. Discusses the IDB’s Special Broadband Program (launched March 2013) to promote high-speed connectivity for schools across the region, and the role of digital content and educational software.
Inter-American Development Bank (2023/2025). Green Schools: Guidelines for the Design of Sustainable, Low-carbon, and Resilient School Infrastructure. Washington, DC: IDB.
Proposes design measures for school facilities that are simultaneously sustainable and resilient, tailoring strategies to the different climate zones of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and to specific hazard types. Aims to support low- or zero-energy school infrastructure aligned with carbon-neutrality targets by 2050, and includes good practices for construction and maintenance phases across the full infrastructure life cycle.
African Development Bank (AfDB)
African Development Bank (2016, published 2020). Support to Education Quality Enhancement (EDUC III), Lesotho — Project Completion Report. Abidjan: AfDB.
Documents an eight-year (2008–2016) education project financed by a $9.3 million grant and $2 million loan from the African Development Fund. On completion, 12 secondary schools had been built or modernized—including 35 new classrooms, seven administrative buildings, 12 science laboratories, two girls’ residences, kitchens, and dining halls—alongside training for 2,200 teachers. The report concludes that new infrastructure combined with teacher training and curriculum development improved enrolment and advancement rates in Lesotho’s primary and secondary education.
African Development Bank (2024). South Sudan — Improving Access and Quality of Basic Education, Project Appraisal Report. Abidjan: AfDB.
Outlines a project to increase access to quality basic education in four South Sudanese states affected by conflict and instability, through rehabilitation and expansion of 35 primary schools (targeting 30,000 boys and girls), teacher-capacity building for 2,000 teachers, and provision of essential learning materials. Includes plans for a Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices study on barriers to enrollment and completion, to be developed into knowledge products for the wider evidence base.
African Development Bank, Statistics Department / African Infrastructure Knowledge Program (AIKP). Market Studies on the Status of Infrastructure Development in Africa (series, since 2010).
An ongoing series of market studies on African infrastructure development, led by AfDB staff and other experts under the African Infrastructure Knowledge Program (successor to the African Infrastructure Country Diagnostic). Feeds into broader academic volumes such as Infrastructure in Africa (Cambridge University Press), which includes education-infrastructure analysis alongside other infrastructure sectors.
African Development Bank (1999). African Development Report 1999: Infrastructure Development in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for AfDB).
An early comprehensive AfDB report assessing the state of infrastructure development across Africa, including education facilities, as part of the Bank’s broader infrastructure-development analysis series.
Link: https://library.au.int/fr/african-development-report-1999-infrastructure-development-africa-9
West African Development Bank (BOAD) & International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) (2023). Scaling Up School Infrastructure Improvements in West Africa. Evidence Impact Summaries. New Delhi: 3ie.
An evidence brief validating the effectiveness of school-infrastructure upgrades in West Africa, showing positive impacts on student enrollment (especially among girls), attendance, retention, and test scores. The findings supported BOAD’s decision to scale up its school-infrastructure program in Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, and Senegal, in a region estimated to need 1.5 million new classrooms by 2023 to keep pace with school-age population growth.
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Asian Development Bank (2021). ADB Support for School Education (K–12) in Asia and the Pacific. ADB Briefs No. 170. Manila: ADB.
Surveys ADB’s education portfolio and its emphasis on learning outcomes as measured by international assessments (PISA, TIMSS). Cites school-infrastructure investment—alongside teacher training and curriculum reform—as a complementary lever for improving education quality across ADB’s developing member countries, referencing specific country programs in Nepal, Lao PDR, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Viet Nam.
Asian Development Bank. Rural Basic Education Project (Uzbekistan) — Project Documentation. Manila: ADB.
Documents that approximately 80% of Uzbekistan’s 9,773 basic schools are located in rural areas, most in very poor condition requiring emergency repairs (leaking roofs, damaged windows and doors, defective floors, malfunctioning sanitary and heating systems). Notes that most classroom furniture is also in very poor condition, roughly 70% of schools lack science laboratory equipment, and many lack modern teaching aids and learning materials, justifying targeted rural infrastructure investment.
Link: https://www.adb.org/projects/40049-013/main
Asian Development Bank. Teaching Quality Improvement in Secondary Education (Bangladesh) — Project Documentation. Manila: ADB.
A project aimed at enhancing secondary-education teaching quality in Bangladesh through improved teacher training facilities and organizational development, with a procurement component covering computers, accessories, furniture for offices and training institutions, and miscellaneous office equipment.
Link: https://www.adb.org/projects/26061-013/main
Asian Development Bank. Enhancing Education Quality Project — Project Completion Documentation. Manila: ADB.
Reports on facilities constructed and equipped for Provincial Teacher Training College (PTTC) learning centers, girls’ dormitories, classrooms, and toilets, alongside curriculum reform and textbook distribution, noting that late delivery of furniture and equipment and limited teacher familiarity with new laboratory equipment affected some sub-outputs.
Link: https://www.adb.org/projects/38559-022/main
Asian Development Bank. Senior Secondary Education Improvement Project (Solomon Islands). Report and Recommendation of the President, RRP SOL 55050-002. Manila: ADB.
Includes an explicit project output on “quality and climate and disaster resilience of secondary school facilities, furniture, and learning equipment enhanced,” alongside curriculum reform for years 10–12 and secondary-school management strengthening. Plans to update or construct climate-resilient facilities at 10 schools while piloting gender-transformative activities and leadership programs for aspiring female educators.
Link: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/55050/55050-002-pam-en_0.pdf
Asian Development Bank. Education Sector Assessment (Mongolia). Linked Document, Manila: ADB.
Cites infrastructural shortcomings—including inadequate hygiene facilities, non-ergonomic furniture, and insufficient learning materials—that diminish the quality of the learning environment, particularly in lifelong learning centers. Notes that schools are augmenting classroom spaces by leasing private properties and repurposing corridors, and considering blended/online learning to manage class sizes amid economic difficulties.
Link: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/57176-001-ssa.pdf
Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) (2022). Income Inequality, Educational Outcomes, and Digital Infrastructure: Can Public–Private Partnerships Play a Pivotal Role in Asia and the Pacific? Asia Pathways blog.
Discusses how public–private partnerships can help address digital-infrastructure gaps in education while balancing fiscal constraints and human-capital limitations. Argues that affordable, accessible digital infrastructure developed through PPPs can reduce long-term economic inequality, while cautioning about short-term labor-market disruption from the transition to digital education delivery.
Asian Development Bank (2026). ADB Partners with Schoolnet India Limited to Improve Learning Outcomes. Manila/New Delhi: ADB press release.
Announces a $10 million ADB financing package with Schoolnet India Limited—ADB’s first private-sector financing for a digital-education project in India—to scale digital learning infrastructure across 30,000 government schools, install computer laboratories in at least 1,000 schools, set up 58,000 digital classrooms, and train at least 56,000 teachers in digital pedagogy, addressing gaps where only 26% of Indian K–12 schools currently have computer laboratories.
Link: https://www.adb.org/news/adb-partners-schoolnet-india-limited-improve-learning-outcomes
Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF) — Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina y el Caribe
CAF; Bardone, A., & Mossayebeh, N. G. (2020). Guía de diseño para proyectos de infraestructura educativa. Caracas: CAF — Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina.
A design guide covering classroom sizing, minimum built and semi-covered area per student, and school program layout for different enrollment scenarios (e.g., six-classroom schools with 180–360 students across shifts). Draws on regional experience and best practices, referencing standards from Argentina’s Buenos Aires Province and national ministries, and reviews recent regional research programs including IDB’s Learning in 21st Century Schools program and CAF’s own physical-resources development program (PEDERFE).
CAF; Bardone, A., & Mossayebeh, N. G. (2020). Guía de formulación para proyectos de infraestructura educativa. Caracas: CAF — Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina.
A companion guide to the design manual above, supporting public-sector actors and program managers in formulating educational-infrastructure projects from initial needs diagnosis (e.g., using Unmet Basic Needs indicators covering overcrowding, housing conditions, sanitation, school attendance, and subsistence capacity) through to the executive project stage.
CAF & United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2021). Guía de gestión en infraestructura para escuelas seguras en el contexto del Marco Integral de Seguridad Escolar (also published in English as Safe Schools Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean, and in Portuguese). Caracas: CAF.
A joint CAF–UNDRR guide developed under a memorandum of understanding to support public-sector infrastructure-program executors and disaster-risk-management entities in strengthening school safety through disaster-risk prevention and management, aligned with the Comprehensive School Safety Framework. Intended to improve the management and prevention of disaster risk in the design, execution, and operation of school infrastructure projects across Latin America and the Caribbean.
Link: https://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/1827
CAF. Guía para el diseño de las infraestructuras educativas desde sistemas de información. Caracas: CAF.
Presents a set of good practices on educational-infrastructure information systems, identified through analysis of technical sources and specialist interviews, organized by use case and across three key dimensions—supporting more efficient and sustainable educational-infrastructure development and management.
CAF (2023). Transformación digital en la educación: el caso de Jujuy. Caracas: CAF.
A case study on the digital transformation of educational infrastructure and equipment in the province of Jujuy, Argentina, part of CAF’s Educational Agenda supporting country initiatives to increase access, improve quality, and strengthen the relevance of education by building new conditions for both material equipment and technological infrastructure in schools.
CAF (2016). “La importancia de tener una buena infraestructura escolar.” CAF web article/blog.
Defines quality educational infrastructure as meeting at least three parameters: comfort conditions for students, teachers, and administrators (adequate temperature, ventilation, lighting, water, electricity, internet, and sanitary drainage); spaces for teaching and practical work (libraries, science, computer, physics, and chemistry laboratories); and spaces for talent, entertainment, sport, and cultural development.
Link: https://www.espaciofisicoeducativo.com/aprendizajes1/
CAF (2020). “CAF presenta dos guías de estudio para mejorar la infraestructura educativa en América Latina.” Caracas: CAF press release.
Announces two CAF study guides for improving educational infrastructure in Latin America, citing that 14 million children and young people in the region remain outside the school system, 40% of basic-education schools lack libraries, 90% lack science laboratories, and 60% lack computer rooms or internet connections.
CAF (2024). Taller de innovación en infraestructura educativa resiliente y transformadora para el aprendizaje en América Latina y el Caribe. Bogotá, Colombia, November 5–6, 2024.
A CAF-organized workshop bringing together 33 members from Ministries of Education across 13 countries in the region (plus representatives from Jujuy province and the Bogotá Mayor’s Office), with invited speakers including architects Giancarlo Mazzanti and Rosan Bosch, aimed at promoting exchange, dissemination, and design strategies for architectural and urban innovation in learning infrastructure across member countries.
CAF (2021). “CAF presenta guía para la gestión de infraestructura escolar segura.” Caracas: CAF press release.
A news release accompanying the CAF–UNDRR safe-schools infrastructure guide, describing the collaboration between the two organizations and their broader plan of work including additional climate-related initiatives benefiting Latin America.
European Commission
European Commission (2025). School Learning Environments for Sustainability in the EU (study), with companion Learning Spaces School Toolkit. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
A study and accompanying practical toolkit exploring how education infrastructure and learning environments across the EU can become more sustainable and supportive of the development of sustainability competences, student health, well-being, and learning. Based on an extensive literature review, national expert reports, and input from experts on learning environments for sustainability and the whole-school approach; supports the European Commission’s commitment to help Member States integrate sustainability into education, in line with the EU Green Deal and Renovation Wave.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture; Commission’s Expert Group on Quality Investment in Education and Training (2021/2022). Interim Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Draws preliminary conclusions on what constitutes quality investment in education and training, organized around four focus areas: teachers and trainers; digital learning; management, infrastructure, and learning environments; and equity and inclusion. Includes a dedicated section on physical learning environments’ impact on education outcomes, the design of learning spaces, and allocation of construction/operation/maintenance budgets, alongside impact-evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of education policies.
European Commission (2011–2012). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
A large-scale survey based on over 190,000 questionnaire responses from students, teachers, and head teachers across primary, lower-, and upper-secondary schools in Europe, examining ICT infrastructure and access, frequency of ICT-based classroom activities, teacher and student digital confidence, and school strategies for ICT integration in teaching and learning.
European Commission. Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) — policy documentation, including a study on satellite-based broadband services in schools. Brussels: European Commission.
A policy initiative to support the sustainable and effective digital adaptation of EU Member States’ education and training systems, structured around 13 actions in two priority areas: developing a high-performing digital education ecosystem, and enhancing digital skills and competences. Includes a companion study finding that in 2015 an estimated 18% of EU primary and secondary schools lacked broadband connectivity, concluding that satellite broadband and voucher schemes could help close this infrastructure gap.
Link: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-learning
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
OECD, Centre for Effective Learning Environments (CELE) (2011). The Future of the Physical Learning Environment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Presents the conclusions of a study carried out in collaboration with schools in six European countries, focused on the physical learning environments of tomorrow. Resulted in the creation of a learning-space model that is flexible, modifiable, and sustainable while supporting teaching and learning processes; includes case studies such as an exemplar zero-carbon primary school in Exeter, United Kingdom.
OECD (2017). OECD School User Survey: Improving Learning Spaces Together. Developed under the Learning Environments Evaluation Programme (LEEP, launched 2013). Paris: OECD.
A survey instrument focused on five areas related to school learning spaces, developed to collect and triangulate evidence on the actual use of learning spaces and solicit user perspectives from students, teachers, and school leaders. Analysis of 822 survey responses provides evidence on the impact of innovative learning environments on teacher practices and student learning, and the tool also supports monitoring of SDG indicator 4.1.a on the quality of physical learning environments.
Link: https://www.academia.edu/127516699/OECD_School_User_Survey_Improving_Learning_Spaces_Together
OECD. Effective Learning Environments (ELE) / Learning Environments Evaluation Programme (LEEP). Paris: OECD (program page).
Describes LEEP’s mission (launched 2013) to develop instruments and analyses informing school leaders, researchers, designers, and policymakers about how investments in learning environments translate into improved education, health, social, and well-being outcomes. Overseen by the OECD Group of National Experts on Effective Learning Environments (GNEELE); notes that the World Bank, Council of Europe Development Bank, European Investment Bank, UNESCO, and UNICEF hold observer status on this group, and references the OECD’s Recommendation of the Council Concerning Guidelines on Earthquake Safety in Schools (2020).
Link: https://search.oecd.org/education/effective-learning-environments/
OECD, Centre for Effective Learning Environments (CELE) (2011). CELE Exchange 2011/11. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Defines “educational spaces” as physical spaces supporting multiple and diverse teaching and learning programs and pedagogies, including current technologies, that demonstrate optimal cost-effective building performance over time. Discusses quality-design criteria for school construction and how to measure and analyze the quality of physical learning environments, with reference to usability, safety, and age-appropriate design requirements.
Research Centers and Independent/ Academic Bodies — United States
Filardo, M. (2016). State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities 2016. Washington, DC: 21st Century School Fund (joint publication with the U.S. Green Building Council and the National Council on School Facilities).
Compiles and analyzes the best available school-district data on U.S. K–12 public school facilities funding, covering 20 years (FY1994–2013) of maintenance/operations spending and capital-construction investment. Projects that the nation will under-invest in school buildings by $46 billion annually and identifies four key strategies to address structural deficits: understanding current facility conditions, engaging communities in planning, piloting innovative funding sources, and leveraging public/private resources.
Link: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581630.pdf
21st Century School Fund (21CSF), International WELL Building Institute, & National Council on School Facilities (NCSF) (2021). 2021 State of Our Schools: America’s PK-12 Public School Facilities. Washington, DC.
A national report compiling and analyzing school-district data on U.S. K–12 public-school facilities funding from FY2009 (following the Great Recession) through FY2019, addressing whether states and districts have adequate operating funds for cleaning, maintenance, and repairs to ensure healthy and safe school buildings and grounds.
Filardo, M. (2006). Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction. Washington, DC: 21st Century School Fund, produced through the Building Educational Success Together (BEST) partnership.
A BEST-coalition report—involving the 21st Century School Fund, Center for Cities and Schools (UC Berkeley), Education Law Center, KnowledgeWorks Foundation, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group—finding that schools in poor condition a decade earlier received the least subsequent investment even as national school-construction spending reached record levels, underscoring persistent disparities in facility quality.
Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED498100
Filardo, M., Bar, M., Cheng, S., Ulsoy, J., & Allen, M. (2010). State capital outlay funding study. Washington, DC: 21st Century School Fund, with support from the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Examines state capital-outlay funding for K-12 facility construction and modernization from 2005–2008, addressing the absence of a national source of data on the federal role in funding and overseeing public PK-12 school facilities, and analyzing how much capital outlay had been expended by states over the study period.
Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=source:%2221st+Century+School+Fund%22&ff1=subSchool+Construction
21st Century School Fund (21CSF), International WELL Building Institute, & National Council on School Facilities (NCSF) (2025/2026). State of Our Schools 2025. Washington, DC (published/hosted by the National Center on School Infrastructure).
Provides an overview of the scale of PK-12 education-facility infrastructure in the U.S., describing local school-district organization, student enrollment, and the nationwide inventory of school buildings and grounds. Presents a framework for modern PK-12 infrastructure standards and findings from a fiscal assessment of maintenance/operations spending and capital outlay, finding a national funding gap of $85 billion each year for elementary and secondary public-school buildings and grounds.
Link: https://school-infrastructure.org/resources/state-of-our-schools-2025-7an/
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2025). Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Schools. Reston, VA: ASCE (hosted/curated by the National Center on School Infrastructure).
Part of ASCE’s quadrennial national infrastructure report card, assigning the nation’s approximately 98,000 PK-12 schools a grade of D+. Highlights the lack of comprehensive national data on school-facility conditions, notes an average school-building age of 49 years with fewer than half significantly renovated since construction, and recommends expanding and coordinating data collection among states.
Link: https://school-infrastructure.org/resources/report-card-for-americas-infrastructure-schools-ya8/
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions (hosted/curated by the National Center on School Infrastructure).
Examines the range of physical conditions reported by public schools across the United States based on a national survey of school districts, finding that schools in urban and high-poverty communities were significantly more likely to report poor facility conditions (leaking roofs, outdated HVAC systems, inadequate instructional space). Emphasizes that deteriorating infrastructure can hinder education reform implementation and calls for a more equitable approach to capital funding.
National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI). School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement (evidence review).
Reviews evidence demonstrating that the condition of school facilities significantly affects both student performance and teacher effectiveness. Notes that comfortable classroom temperatures and noise levels are crucial for efficient learning, that building age serves as a useful proxy for thermal and acoustic problems, and that students in well-maintained schools consistently outperform peers in substandard facilities by several percentage points.
National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI). Resource library and clearinghouse (ongoing). Washington, DC / Berkeley, CA: NCSI (consortium including the 21st Century School Fund, National Council on School Facilities, Center for Green Schools, and Child Trends; hosted at UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools).
A national clearinghouse curating tools, research, guidance, policy briefs, data sets, and case studies on planning, funding, building, operating, maintaining, and improving PK-12 school facilities. Serves as a designated technical-assistance provider to the U.S. Department of Education’s Supporting America’s School Infrastructure (SASI) program, and hosts key third-party resources including the World Bank’s Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning synthesis and the University of Salford’s Clever Classrooms report.
Link: https://school-infrastructure.org/
National Council on School Facilities, Center for Cities + Schools, 21st Century School Fund, & Center for Green Schools (U.S. Green Building Council). Adequate & Equitable U.S. PK-12 Infrastructure. Washington, DC / Berkeley, CA (joint report).
Identifies 55 priority actions—synthesized and selected from 200 solution ideas—to address the systemic problems of delivering adequate and equitable public school facilities in the United States. The priority actions support a comprehensive local, state, and federal system for PK-12 infrastructure and were developed with input from advisors including members of California’s Proposition 39 (Clean Energy & Jobs Act) Citizens Oversight Board.
Link: https://www.facilitiescouncil.org/research
Center for Cities + Schools (CC+S), UC Berkeley. Institutional research program and publications archive (ongoing). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
An interdisciplinary research center founded in 2004 by Deborah McKoy and Jeff Vincent, working at the intersection of urban policy and public education to promote high-quality education as essential to equitable, healthy, sustainable cities. Co-produced Growth and Disparity (2006, listed above) as part of the BEST coalition, maintains an ongoing Equitable School Facilities research initiative (including Early Childhood Education facilities design tools), an Education Workforce Housing initiative (with the California School Boards Association, funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative), and now also hosts the National Center on School Infrastructure.
Link: https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/
Center for Cities + Schools (CC+S), UC Berkeley. Ten Core Connections between Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Public Education. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.
An exploratory paper—described as the first of its kind—examining the connections between Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and families, schools, and expanding educational opportunities for all children. Provides a rationale for linkages between TOD and public education, highlights ten core connections, presents five Bay Area case studies, and offers recommendations for enhancing city-school collaboration in TOD planning.
Link: https://escholarship.org/uc/iurd_cfcs
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH / C.A.S.H.) (founded 1978). Sacramento, CA.
The largest U.S. statewide organization focused exclusively on K-12 school-facilities issues, with over 1,000 public- and private-sector members (school districts, county offices, architects, attorneys, consultants, construction managers, financial institutions, modular building manufacturers, contractors, and developers). Functions primarily as an advocacy and professional-education body—running the Annual Conference on School Facilities (3,000+ attendees), the School Facilities Leadership Academy, and a Maintenance Management Certification Program—rather than an academic publisher. Since 1982, CASH has sponsored or supported over $52 billion in California statewide school-facility bonds (including Propositions 1D, 51, 39, and 55) to build, modernize, and maintain public schools, and has submitted formal advocacy statements supporting federal legislation such as the Rebuild America’s Schools Act. CASH members, including participants on California’s Proposition 39 Citizens Oversight Board, served as advisors to the Center for Cities + Schools’ Adequate & Equitable U.S. PK-12 Infrastructure report (listed above).
Link: https://cashnet.org/
University of Salford, UK — Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the Built Environment (SCRI)
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever Classrooms: Summary Report of the HEAD Project (Holistic Evidence and Design). Salford, UK: University of Salford, SCRI.
Funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), this landmark study collected detailed data on 3,766 pupils across 153 classrooms in 27 primary schools spanning three English local authorities (Blackpool, Hampshire, and the London Borough of Ealing). Found that physical classroom characteristics explain 16% of the variation in a pupil’s learning progress over a year, organized around three factors—naturalness (light, temperature, air quality), individualization (ownership, flexibility), and stimulation (complexity, colour)—collectively known as the “SIN” framework. The naturalness factor accounted for roughly half of the total effect. The report has directly informed policy and research at the OECD, the UK Department for Education, Norway’s Directorate for Education and Training, the Australian Council for Educational Research, and the US Green Building Council; lead author Peter Barrett also co-authored the World Bank’s 2019 synthesis report on school infrastructure and learning.
University of Salford (2015). “Well-designed classrooms can boost learning progress in primary school pupils by 16%, new research reveals.” Salford, UK: University of Salford News.
A news release accompanying publication of the Clever Classrooms report (25 February 2015), quoting lead researcher Professor Peter Barrett on the simple, low-cost, evidence-based classroom changes that can meaningfully improve children’s reading, writing, and math progress, without requiring major capital investment from schools or local authorities.
University of Melbourne, Australia — Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN)
Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2016–2020). Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change (ILETC). Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP150100022.
A four-year Australian Research Council Linkage Project (2016–2019/2020) bringing together researchers in education, architecture, and design alongside 15+ partner organizations to examine what support teachers need to use physical space as a component of pedagogic practice, and the resulting impact on student learning. Key outputs include the Technical Report 1/2017, Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools, based on a 2016 survey of school leaders across Australia and New Zealand, and case studies identifying strategies for using space as a teaching tool.
Link: http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports/
University of Melbourne / ILETC Project. Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change: Final Research Findings. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Adopting an exploratory research design to document correlation between effective teacher use of Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) and high levels of student deep learning, the final findings report concludes that ILEs can outperform traditional classroom designs on measures of desired learning and teaching characteristics, and identifies a causal relationship between ILEs, student deep learning, and measures of quality teaching.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory / Heschong Mahone Group, United States
Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship between Daylighting and Human Performance (Detailed Report). Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong Mahone Group, for Pacific Gas & Electric / California Energy Commission.
A landmark study analyzing approximately 21,000 student records across three school districts in three U.S. states, using multivariate linear-regression analysis to isolate the relationship between classroom daylighting (from windows and skylights) and standardized academic test performance. Found that students with the most classroom daylighting progressed 20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year compared to students with the least daylighting; students with the largest windows progressed 15% faster in math and 23% faster in reading.
Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444337
Heschong Mahone Group (2001). Daylighting in Schools: Reanalysis Report. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
A peer-reviewed follow-up study, statistically reviewed in part by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, that reanalyzed student-performance data from two school districts to address methodological questions raised about the original 1999 study. Confirmed that the daylighting effect does not vary by grade level and affirmed a positive, highly significant association between daylight availability and improved student performance, with implications for the design of schools and other buildings.
Link: https://filesnewbuilding.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A-3_Dayltg_Schools_2.2.51.pdf
Latin America — Academic and Policy Research Centers
Centro de Estudios de Políticas y Prácticas en Educación (CEPPE UC), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (2024–2025). Infraestructura Escolar Pública en Chile: Un Llamado a Su Fortalecimiento Integral. Santiago: CEPPE UC.
An academic review calling for comprehensive strengthening of Chile’s public school infrastructure within the framework of Law No. 21.040, drawing on Chilean Ministry of Education infrastructure censuses. Proposes increasing the minimum built area per student in classrooms, workshops, and laboratories from the current 1.1 m² to 2 m² (in line with international experience and OECD recommendations), and doubling the minimum air volume per student from 3 m³ to 6 m³ to improve indoor environmental quality.
Multi-author (2024–2025). Infraestructura Escolar y su Impacto en el Rendimiento Académico. Ecuador: Revista Hallazgos21, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador Sede Esmeraldas.
A qualitative, interpretive systematic literature review examining the impact of school infrastructure on academic performance in urban and rural areas across three South American countries—Peru, Chile, and Ecuador—drawing on UNESCO regional testing data. Finds that access to science laboratories, computer rooms, and music/art rooms varies substantially across the region, with Chile showing comparatively higher access to arts facilities (41% of third-grade students), and links these disparities to differences in student outcomes.
Link: https://revistas.pucese.edu.ec/hallazgos21/article/download/706/760?inline=1
-.-
© Copyright Alberto Treves 2026. Terms of use