As families consider relocating, the quality of local public schools often becomes a pivotal factor. The allure of modern athletic facilities, spacious classrooms, and cutting-edge technology in science and computer labs can be irresistible for parents who equate these attributes with a superior education. But, as a recent study from Yale Insights explores, does the financial investment in school infrastructure genuinely enhance educational outcomes?
Barbara Biasi, an Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale SOM, alongside her colleagues Julien Lafortune and David Schönholzer, delved into this question. Their research, which spans data from across the United States, seeks to unravel the complex relationship between capital spending on schools and its impact on educational quality and real estate prices. For those interested in a deeper dive, the full article can be found here.
The study’s findings indicate that while capital projects generally increase both test scores and property values, the benefits are predominantly seen in districts with disadvantaged students. Interestingly, the type of capital project plays a crucial role in determining its impact. Projects focused on infrastructure improvements, such as HVAC systems, significantly enhance test scores but do not necessarily raise property values. Conversely, investments in visible amenities like athletic facilities tend to boost property prices.
Biasi’s research highlights a critical consideration for voters who decide on capital proposals. She emphasizes the importance of understanding whether these investments will truly benefit students or merely serve to increase local property values. As she notes, “Public schools are supposed to be free, but really people are paying for the best public school they can afford.”
Implications for Policy and Community
This study raises essential questions about the role of voters in making decisions that impact educational infrastructure. With the majority of voters not being parents, there’s a risk that the benefits of certain projects may not be fully appreciated or prioritized. Biasi hopes that this research will encourage a more informed discussion around school funding and its implications for both students and the broader community.
Looking ahead, Biasi and her team plan to explore how different funding rules across states affect the approval and impact of capital projects. This next phase aims to provide further insights into how modifications in funding rules could potentially reshape the educational landscape.
For more insights from Barbara Biasi and her team, visit her profile on Yale Insights.
More Articles
Getting licensed or staying ahead in your career can be a journey—but it doesn’t have to be overwhelming. Grab your favorite coffee or tea, take a moment to relax, and browse through our articles. Whether you’re just starting out or renewing your expertise, we’ve got tips, insights, and advice to keep you moving forward. Here’s to your success—one sip and one step at a time!
Long Island’s commercial real estate market just smashed every previous record, hitting an unprecedented $4.1 billion in 2025 deal volume—up a massive 71.5 percent from the year before. A surge in specialty-use properties like assisted living centers and self-storage facilities fueled the boom, alongside hundreds of new transactions across Nassau and Suffolk counties. With investor confidence rebounding, interest rates easing, and new buyer profiles entering the scene, the region has become one of the hottest real estate markets to watch.
Federal cuts to housing oversight in 2026 are creating a nationwide regulatory scramble, with states—especially California—rapidly stepping in to fill the gap. As the CFPB reduces its enforcement role, lawmakers and agencies across the country are crafting their own rules on mortgage compliance, consumer protection, affordability, and even AI‑driven underwriting. For real estate, mortgage, and finance professionals, the message is clear: state regulations are becoming just as influential as federal policy, making ongoing education and compliance awareness more critical than ever.
The insurance industry poured an eye‑opening $172 million into federal lobbying in 2025, making it the fourth‑largest lobbying sector in the country. Medical insurers led the spending, but property and casualty giants weren’t far behind, with APCIA, Nationwide, Liberty Mutual, and Allstate all landing among the top contributors. And this is only federal spending—state‑level influence, where regulations are truly shaped, remains vastly underreported. For professionals in insurance, real estate, and finance, these lobbying efforts play a powerful role in shaping regulations, costs, and the competitive landscape.
Florida’s home insurance market saw a 3.35% non-renewal rate last year—a small percentage that translated into hundreds of thousands of homeowners suddenly losing coverage. Driven by repeated storm damage, soaring construction costs, heavy litigation, and insurers pulling back from high-risk areas, the state’s insurance landscape is rapidly shifting. Homeowners now face higher premiums, fewer options, and tougher underwriting, while professionals in real estate, mortgage, and insurance must stay informed to guide clients through a tightening market.
Florida’s recent tort reforms are doing far more than reshaping the state’s legal system—they’re driving down property and casualty insurance costs by an average of 14.5% and injecting over $4.2 billion into the state’s economy each year. With nearly 30,000 jobs supported and state and local governments seeing hundreds of millions in new tax revenue, the changes are already transforming Florida’s insurance market. Lawsuits have dropped, insurers are returning, and businesses and homeowners alike are reaping the benefits of a more balanced, competitive, and financially resilient environment.
Major commercial real estate firms are reporting strong revenue and renewed market activity, signaling a rebound in dealmaking and office demand. Yet even with record earnings, CEOs from CBRE, Colliers, and Marcus & Millichap spent much of their earnings calls addressing a growing concern: whether artificial intelligence could threaten traditional brokerage and valuation roles. While leaders insist that complex transactions still rely on human relationships and negotiation, AI‑related market jitters briefly pushed some CRE stocks down before they recovered.
