Blog

What Should Michigan School Leaders Do After Reading the Statewide Facility Report? 

If you’re a school administrator, facilities director, or financial decision-maker in a Michigan school district, you may have recently received the 2025 Michigan Statewide School Facility Report—one that lays bare a staggering reality: Michigan’s K–12 schools face over $23 billion in deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs. If that number made your stomach sink, you’re certainly not alone. 

At Weather Shield Roofing Systems™, we’ve partnered with Michigan’s educational institutions for more than 40 years to protect their roofing investments and help them navigate complex capital planning decisions. Like many of you, we’ve been closely reviewing the recently released Michigan Statewide School Facilities Study, and it’s clear this report could have a significant impact on long-term facility planning statewide. 

So, what does this 60-page document really mean for your district? How were the findings determined? And—critically—how do you know if the conclusions about your buildings, especially your roofs, reflect actual conditions? 

Let’s unpack it with clarity. 

What Is the Michigan Statewide School Facility Study? 

Commissioned by the School Finance Research Foundation and delivered to the Michigan Department of Education, this study represents the most comprehensive evaluation of school facility conditions in decades. Over 500 public school districts and charter schools participated, each receiving individualized summaries of estimated needs. 

The core objective? To illustrate the depth of deferred infrastructure investment across Michigan schools—especially critical in a state where the burden of funding capital improvements falls almost entirely on local districts. Unlike many states, Michigan does not provide direct state-level support for school facility upgrades. 

Therefore, if your report cites tens of millions in projected deficiencies, it’s no wonder the first question many superintendents ask is: Where do we even start? 

How Were Roofs Evaluated in the Report? 

This is perhaps the most crucial—and most ambiguous—part of the study. 

From what we understand, most facility data was gathered via district-submitted surveys. These likely included questions about roof age, known issues, and basic descriptions of current conditions. However, it appears that few—if any—roof assessments involved on-site inspections by qualified roofing professionals. 

In other words, if your report indicates that certain roofs are “beyond useful life” or “non-recoverable,” those conclusions may be based solely on age or anecdotal input—not actual inspections. 

As a result, that presents a serious problem. 

Why Roof Age Alone Can Be Misleading 

If there’s one thing we’ve learned after four decades specializing in commercial roofing, it’s this: A roof’s age is not the definitive measure of its health. Condition is. 

To illustrate: 

• A 16-year-old roof with consistent preventative maintenance may remain watertight and fully serviceable for another decade. 

• A 5-year-old roof, installed poorly or neglected from the start, may already be experiencing systemic failures. 

• Many school campuses have roofs installed in phases over multiple decades. One section might be pristine; another could be compromised. 

In short, age is a data point. It’s not a diagnosis. 

What Does a Comprehensive Roof Assessment Actually Involve? 

If your next step is determining whether your report’s roofing recommendations are valid, start by asking how the evaluations were performed. 

If the answer is, “We reported age and general condition from our own records,” it’s time to consider commissioning a formal roof condition assessment. A proper inspection should include: 

• A collaborative meeting with facilities staff to understand maintenance history and problem areas. 

• A physical walk-through of all roof sections, regardless of type or installation date. 

• Inspection of all seams, curbs, boots, and transitions for signs of deterioration. 

• Examination of sealants, edge flashings, coping caps, and wall-to-roof interfaces. 

• Core sampling to determine membrane composition, insulation condition, and presence of trapped moisture. 

• Infrared or nuclear moisture scanning to detect hidden issues not visible on the surface. 

Following this process, your district should receive a detailed roof condition report—complete with photos, diagnostic data, and prioritized recommendations for repair, replacement, or maintenance. Only with this level of detail can you develop a facilities strategy grounded in reality, not assumption. 

What If the Michigan Facility Report Indicates Our Roofs Are at End-of-Life? 

It’s easy to feel alarmed when a document lists millions in estimated roof replacement costs. However, it’s critical to recognize that this report is a starting point, not a definitive conclusion. 

If your roofs were not physically inspected, then you do not yet have the full picture. In fact, it’s entirely possible that what’s labeled as “failure” could, in reality, be manageable deterioration—solvable through targeted repairs or enrollment in a maintenance program like our Max Life Roof Care system. 

For example, we’ve helped school districts avoid premature replacements and stretch the useful life of their existing roofs by five, ten, or even fifteen years through strategic maintenance. 

How Can You Verify the Accuracy of Your Roof Assessment? 

When evaluating any roof report—whether it comes from a state study, an architect, or a contractor—look for transparency, specificity, and hard data. 

Ask yourself: 

• Was the roof physically walked and inspected? 

• Were photos or thermal scans included to support the recommendations? 

• Did the report distinguish between urgent needs and long-term risks? 

• Were core samples or non-invasive moisture scans taken? 

• Does the report provide a clear path forward—repair, restoration, or replacement—with cost-benefit analysis? 

Furthermore, if the answers are unclear or the documentation feels overly generalized, that’s a red flag. In situations where millions in potential capital expenditures are on the table, due diligence is not optional—it’s essential. 

What Should Michigan School Districts Do Next? 

If your district is navigating the implications of the Michigan Statewide School Facility Study, here are four steps to take immediately: 

1. View the report as a framework—not a mandate. It identifies high-level trends, but every building deserves its own detailed evaluation. 

1. Cross-reference the study with your existing capital improvement plans. Does it confirm what you already know, or contradict recent inspections? 

1. Seek independent assessments from trusted experts. Particularly when it comes to roofing, in-person evaluations are vital for informed planning. 

1. Align your long-term strategy with actual building conditions. Work with roofing professionals who understand lifecycle costing, educational budgets, and facilities planning—not just roofing products. 

Meanwhile, if your current reality feels like “leak-react mode,” you’re not alone. Many districts have been operating without the resources for proactive roof management for years. 

The encouraging news is this: it’s never too late to take a more strategic approach. With a thoughtful assessment, data-backed planning, and consistent maintenance, you can extend your roofs’ lifespan, avoid disruptive emergency repairs, and allocate your capital where it will do the most good—inside the classroom. 

The Weather Shield Difference

At Weather Shield Roofing Systems™, we’re committed to helping Michigan schools make confident, cost-effective decisions about their roofs. Whether you need a second opinion, a full condition audit, or guidance building a 5- to 10-year facility strategy, our team is here to help. 

Let’s get your district the clarity it needs—and deserves. Reach out anytime.