In a previous review, my colleagues examined a National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC) report that analyzed states’ charter policies regarding access to district-owned facilities. In a new report, NCSRC narrows its focus to charter school facilities in California. Golden State charters were asked to complete a survey about their facilities and to allow an on-site measurement; these results were then supplemented by data on school enrollment, student demographics, and funding. The results offer a sobering picture of charter facilities in the state. Charter school facilities are generally smaller than the size recommended by the California Department of Education; classrooms for elementary, middle, and high schools are, on average, between 82 and 89 percent of the state standard size (it is worth nothing that state size standards might not be appropriate for all schools in all situations). Charter facilities as a whole are 60 percent smaller than state site size recommendations, even after adjustments are made for enrollment differences. California charters also spend varying amounts of their per-pupil funding on facilities; charters that own their buildings pay an average of $895 per pupil; charters located in a school district facility pay an average of $285 per pupil; and charters renting from a private organization pay an average of $570 per pupil. School district facilities are clearly the most cost effective, but since they are not consistently and readily available, many charters are forced to seek more expensive options. In addition, co-located charters have concerns about implementing their curricula and ensuring student safety in space controlled by others. Specialized spaces—kitchens, science labs, gymnasiums, and library/media rooms—are in even shorter supply than standard classroom space. Despite all of these facility shortcomings, there are approximately ninety-one thousand California students on charter school waitlists. To meet this demand, 85 percent of charters plan to grow their enrollment over the next five years, but 64 percent of those schools do not have the space to meet their desired enrollment growth. California may be on the other side of the country, but the facility struggles of its charters are not that different from those we see in Ohio. Ohio policymakers should take notice of the importance and scarcity of high-quality, affordable facilities—especially for high-performing charters that offer valuable choices to families.
SOURCE: “An Analysis of the Charter School Facility Landscape in California.” National Charter School Resource Center (April 2015).
