Can Economic Pressure Finally Open District Doors to Charter Schools?

05 Jul Can Economic Pressure Finally Open District Doors to Charter Schools?

Across the country, traditional school districts are grappling with a serious challenge: declining student enrollment and mounting financial pressure. Meanwhile, charter schools, particularly those serving historically underserved communities, continue to grow, often without adequate facilities or fair access to public buildings.

One obvious solution? Let charter schools occupy the thousands of vacant or underutilized district buildings sitting empty across the country. But despite the opportunity to serve more public school students more efficiently, many school districts continue to keep these buildings off-limits to charter operators.

This longstanding tension may be nearing a tipping point. As budget shortfalls worsen and student migration continues, economic realities may finally push districts and charters toward more collaborative facility use whether through leases, co-location, or even sales. States have the policy tools to support this, but progress remains uneven.

The Facilities Gap: A Structural Imbalance

Traditional public school districts own most of the nation’s public school infrastructure, paid for largely through local property taxes. Charter schools, on the other hand, must independently find and finance their facilities usually using operating funds that would otherwise go toward instruction.

This creates a deep structural imbalance: charter schools are public schools, but are rarely treated as equal partners when it comes to accessing public buildings. As a result, many spend five to six times more of their per-pupil revenue on facilities compared to peers in district-owned space.

According to data from the Charter School Facilities Initiative, charter schools in district buildings spend a median of 0.9% of their revenue on facilities, compared to 5.8% for those in private spaces. That’s a difference of $420 per student per year, or nearly $170,000 annually for an average-sized school of 399 students.

Put simply: access to district-owned space unlocks major cost savings that could be reinvested into academics, staffing, and student services.

Enrollment Shifts = Building Imbalances

Between 2019 and 2023, traditional public schools lost 1.42 million students, while charter schools gained 373,000. This massive shift has real estate implications.

Using an average of 500 students per building, districts now need 2,841 fewer schools, while charter operators need 746 more. Yet instead of reallocating vacant space, many districts hold on to buildings—even when they drain budgets, invite blight, or sit idle for years.

Some states have passed laws to address this imbalance. Thirty-three states (plus D.C.) have statutes addressing charter school access to district facilities. But here’s the catch: most laws lack teeth, and enforcement is rare.

Co-Locating or Competing? The State Policy Landscape

States take different approaches to charter access. Some mandate “no rent” or actual cost-only leases. Others permit fair market rates, while a few encourage outright purchase options.

The most common models involve leasing district buildings or co-locating within existing campuses. These arrangements are often negotiated at the local level and vary widely depending on political climate, facility availability, and the authorizer relationship.

A few patterns stand out:

• States with strong district authorizer presence (i.e., where most charters are authorized by local school boards) are more likely to share facilities. On average, 24% of charters in those states operate in district buildings, compared to just 10% where state or non-district authorizers dominate.
• Enforcement matters. Even when states have clear statutes supporting facility access, without oversight mechanisms, compliance is weak. Arkansas (2017), Indiana, and New Hampshire have recently passed laws strengthening enforcement—but results are still emerging.
• Notification is key. Some states require districts to publicly list available buildings. Others rely on charters to request access or opt into notification systems. A centralized, transparent list is a critical ingredient for equity.

Who’s Doing It (and Who Isn’t)?

A national review shows that only a small number of states have significant charter school presence in district facilities:

• Virginia, Wyoming, Iowa, and Kansas lead in terms of percentage, but these states have very few charter schools, often fewer than 10 statewide.
• Louisiana is unique because of the New Orleans all-charter model, where district and charter roles are blurred.
• Wisconsin and Arkansas have high percentages due to conversion schools where charters evolved from existing district schools.

On the flip side, many states with large charter sectors show shockingly low facility access:

• California, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Arizona have hundreds of charter schools, yet less than 5–15% operate in district buildings.
• States like North Carolina, Missouri, and Nevada also have low participation, despite significant charter enrollment and facility need.

Why the Disconnect?

While many state laws express clear intent that charter schools should have access to vacant public buildings, intent is not enough.

Few statutes include:

• Clear definitions (e.g., what counts as “underutilized”?)
• Timelines for response to charter inquiries
• Enforcement mechanisms or consequences for non-compliance

As a result, many districts simply ignore facility sharing requirements. The law may say “access,” but the reality on the ground often says “not here.”

In practice, most charter schools that successfully gain access do so through:

• District-charter cooperation
• Conversion schools
• Political leverage
• Or in rare cases, litigation

The Missed Opportunity

When districts leave facilities vacant, the costs are not just financial, they’re civic. Empty buildings lower property values, attract crime, and waste taxpayer dollars.

When charter schools spend heavily on rent or mortgages, they divert resources from teachers, curriculum, and student supports. Sharing buildings, especially when enrollment trends clearly support it, should be a win-win.

Imagine if the average charter school could redirect $170,000 per year into its classrooms. Multiply that across hundreds of schools, and you have a system-level shift toward equity.

A Path Forward

To make real progress, states and districts need to go beyond good intentions. Here are a few policy recommendations to unlock underutilized public buildings:

1. Mandate centralized facility listings
   Require states or districts to publish an annually updated list of vacant or underused buildings, with clear application processes for charter schools.
2. Set timelines and response rules
   Establish statutory deadlines for districts to respond to charter requests and define what constitutes “underutilized” space.
3. Tie funding to access
   Link certain district funding streams (e.g., facilities aid, grants) to a requirement that they make space available when they have it.
4. Enforce consequences for non-compliance
   Create state-level appeals processes or financial penalties for districts that violate facility access laws.
5. Encourage collaboration, not conflict
   Promote facility-sharing agreements and co-location models that emphasize shared services, safety, and student success rather than turf battles.

Conclusion: Will Financial Pressure Break the Logjam?

The national charter school movement continues to grow, especially in communities seeking better, more personalized education options. But facilities remain one of the largest barriers to equitable access and long-term sustainability.

With district enrollment declining and budgets tightening, economic pressure may finally do what policy alone could not: encourage a more rational use of public space.

We should not wait for crisis to drive collaboration. The infrastructure is already built. The laws exist. The only question is whether we’ll use them to serve students, all public school students, more effectively.

This information is from an upcoming review of state charter school facility policies by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Learn more about equitable access to charter school facilities and best practices across the country at fredcharter.org.