When school district leaders start raising alarms about a proposal that simply enforces existing law, it’s a clear sign the law hasn’t been taken seriously. That’s precisely the case in Ohio, where some superintendents are pushing back against sensible reform proposals designed to ensure districts comply with a longstanding requirement to make vacant or underused school buildings available to public charter schools.
The controversy centers on provisions in Governor DeWine’s budget proposal that would strengthen the state’s unused facilities statute. Under current law, districts must first offer these buildings to charter and STEM schools before repurposing or selling them. It’s a reasonable and longstanding policy—one rooted in fairness and fiscal responsibility. Yet some district administrators are objecting, not because the state’s expectation will change, but because they would actually be held accountable for following the law.
How did we get here? Unfortunately, it’s been a long time coming. The policy has been on the books since 2013, and—as my Fordham colleagues have detailed—there’s ample evidence that it has been routinely flouted. A 2016 survey found that nearly half of charter school leaders described districts as “generally uncooperative” in making facilities available. Former Auditor of State Dave Yost flagged the same problem in a 2019 report. Ohio’s largest district, Columbus City Schools, provides telling examples. In recent years, the United Schools Network—one of the state’s top-performing charter operators[1]—was given the very public runaround by the district when it sought to purchase a vacant building. Another shining star in the capital city, the independent STEM school Metro Early College High School, was similarly stymied by the district for several years before a consortium led by Battelle and The Ohio State University intervened to override the district’s anti-competitive dictates.
In response to these and other flagrant incidents, lawmakers added some clarity to the law in recent years—optimistically hoping it would result in greater compliance. Legislators sought to define “unused facility” to include severely underutilized buildings, meaning those under 60 percent capacity. Their hopes were quickly dashed as the law is still being ignored.
Fast forward to today and in steps Governor DeWine, doing what responsible policymakers should and proposing the addition of guardrails to finally sync up what the law says and what’s happening on the ground. His commonsense recommendations include: proposing a clearer, more enforceable definition of “unused facility”—specifically, designating buildings as such if they fall below 60 percent of either their design capacity or their peak enrollment over the past ten years; requiring that facilities be offered at prices more reflective of their value as educational spaces rather than market-rate appraisals aimed at commercial buyers; removing unnecessary geographic restrictions, allowing any high-quality charter in the state to bid on available buildings, not just those already operating in the district; and requiring districts to report unused buildings to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, which will then make those records publicly accessible.
The governor’s language was largely stripped out of the budget bill by the House, but the prospect of it being embraced by Senate has district officials on edge. DeWine’s proposal was a much-needed start. Could it be improved to better target chronic noncompliance and protect legitimate use cases like swing space during construction or specialized student services? Absolutely. Senate leaders can and should refine the proposal to avoid unintended consequences and ensure schools still have flexibility for legitimate facility planning. But they should resist efforts—sure to come in force from districts—to water it down into irrelevance. The goal should be to make the law work.
Predictably, some district leaders are opposing these efforts under the banner of “local control.” But what they’re really asking for is the continued ability to ignore the law. They want to retain the power to warehouse taxpayer-funded buildings, even while high quality public charter schools struggle to secure school buildings. That’s not local control. That’s obstruction.
Here’s the principle that should guide this entire debate: Ohio taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay twice for public education infrastructure. The idea that charter schools—public schools that educate tens of thousands of students—should have to fight to prevent a taxpayer-funded facility from being sold off, demolished, or handed over to a private buyer defies both logic and fairness. These are public assets that are being left vacant or half-empty. Their continued use for public education shouldn’t be controversial.
For too long, Ohio’s traditional public schools have treated the state’s facility disposition law as optional—sidestepping their obligation to offer unused buildings to public charter schools. The governor’s proposals aren’t radical or punitive; they’re long-overdue, sensible fixes that reinforce the intent of the law. They ensure that charter schools—an integral part of the state’s public education system—get a fair shot at obtaining taxpayer-funded facilities designed for education. It’s good policy, it’s overdue, and it sends a clear message: Laws matter, and it’s time they were followed.
[1] Our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, is the sponsor of schools sponsored by the United Schools Network.
