In Ohio and across the nation, charters have struggled to obtain adequate, appropriate space in which to operate. As competitors, districts have been reluctant to allow charters to operate in buildings that they own, whether through co-location in an open district school or taking residence in a shuttered school. But according to the latest report from the National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC), a few states and cities have been proactive in helping charters access district facilities. The report, using charter survey data across fourteen states from 2007 to 2014, reveals that charters in California and New York—New York City, in particular—were most likely to operate in district-owned space. In California, nearly half (45 percent) of charters operated in district facilities, while 31 percent of New York charters did so. In New York City, 62 percent of the city’s charters operated in a district facility, undoubtedly encouraged by the $1 rental fee that the district was permitted to charge charters (an innovation of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s). The study also reported some variation in the financial arrangements between districts and charters: Of the charters that operated in a district-owned facility, 46 percent of them reported paying no fee to the district, 41 percent reported paying the district an amount equivalent to the cost of operating the building (a median facility cost of $118,500), and 13 percent reported paying the district an amount above the cost of maintaining the building (a median cost of $540,068). Ohio is not included in the report, although mention is made of the special circumstances in Cleveland, where the first charter/district co-location arrangement in the state exists and has recently been renewed. To encourage more district/charter facility arrangements, the authors point to state policies such as requirements that districts publicly list unutilized and vacant space or provide charters with a “right of first refusal.” (That is, when selling a facility, districts must offer it to charter operators first at a price that is not higher than the market value of the property.) A state law to this effect has borne fruit in Columbus recently, yielding benefits both to growing charters and a space-rich, cash-poor district. City leaders can also help charters access district facilities, as was the case in New York City. As charters grow in Ohio, state and city-level policymakers will need to address the charter facility issue. To ensure cost effectiveness, they should insist that traditional districts make available their facilities to brick-and-mortar charters at a reasonable or zero cost. After all, the facilities should be considered public assets—paid for at taxpayer expense—and ought to be used for public education purposes, whether by a district or public charter school.
SOURCE: Jim Griffin, Leona Christy, and Jody Ernst, “Finding Space: Charter Schools in District-Owned Facilities”, National Charter School Resource Center (March 2015).
