Charter-district co-location expands educational opportunity

Across the United States, public charter schools provide innovative educational choices for families seeking alternatives to traditional district schools. But as demand rises, one of the greatest constraints on continued growth is access to suitable and affordable real estate.

Public schools must comply with complex and costly facility requirements, including Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and specialized infrastructure such as science labs, cafeterias, and gymnasiums. Policymakers can alleviate structural barriers by allowing charter schools to co-locate within existing district campuses already paid for by the public. Co-location reduces startup costs for charter schools, creating new options and promoting educational innovation in historically underserved communities.

Recent developments

This past month, California courts struck down a Los Angeles Unified School District policy that restricted charter access, reaffirming Proposition 39’s mandate for facility access. The rule, which requires district schools to share under-utilized classrooms with charter operators, currently benefits one in five LAUSD students attending charter schools. Despite fluctuations in enrollment and ongoing policy debates, co-location remains essential to Los Angeles’ educational landscape, with 41 campuses scheduled for charter co-locations in 2025. The ruling protects co-location in other California cities—like San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, and some Central Valley areas—where charters have been sharing district campuses for a quarter century.

Meanwhile in Florida, Governor DeSantis’ administration enacted major legislation expanding its Schools of Hope program, which allows charter networks to co‑locate in underused district facilities rent‑free. Florida and California offer nearly inverse political climates when it comes to education policy—Florida with a free-market, pro-charter state government in contrast with California’s more union-friendly, regulation-heavy approach. Yet in both states, traditional school districts resist the competition posed by public charter schools. The Florida model cleverly allows charters to bypass district opposition by applying directly to state university authorizers  for permission to co-locate.

Since K–12 law varies state-by-state, charters must navigate a hodgepodge of different co-location policies across the nation. After decades of evidence, however, the laboratory of policy innovation has begun to produce evidence-based best practices. Now is the time to discuss model state policy to promote effective and equitable co-location practices.

Understanding co‑location

Co‑location refers to placing an independently managed charter school within the same campus—or even the same building—as a district-run public school. Though separate in administration, both schools share key infrastructure such as auditoriums, libraries, and dance studios that are expensive to duplicate. This arrangement retains district and charter autonomy while more efficiently leveraging public assets.

At least 27 states have taken steps to improve charters’ access to real estate, but the strength and specificity of these co-location laws vary widely. A handful of states—including California, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington, as well as the District of Columbia—stand out because of clearly defined rights to request space, strong enforcement mechanisms, and explicit mandates for districts to make under-utilized facilities available.

Examples in practice

Cities like New York and Washington, D.C. demonstrate the significant benefits of robust co-location policies. Despite limited per-pupil funding as they scale, approximately 50 percent of New York City charters co-locate, enabling innovative models to launch in one of the country’s most limited and expensive real estate markets.

The same is true in Washington, D.C., which also supports co-location through a strong legal and administrative framework. Half of the 134 charters share or occupy district-owned real estate, simplifying charter establishment and expansion, particularly in high-demand neighborhoods. By reducing barriers to entry for educational providers, these deep blue cities have spurred competition to the benefit of parent and student consumers. New York and Washington are recognized as some of the most high-performing, diverse charter communities in the country.

Exemplar co-location policies accelerate the transition from a monopolistic district-only landscape to a competitive charter market. Florida’s Schools of Hope initiative, which permits rent-free co-location that can be approved by university authorizers, illustrates how these policies can allow new opportunities to launch in underserved communities.

Based in New York City, Success Academy charter schools use a controversial, discipline-heavy model. Despite its detractors, Success Academy remains highly popular with low-income parents due to their students’ incredible test scores—among the highest in New York State, including wealthy districts—and overall student achievement. Their expansion to Florida faced organized political resistance, with the threat of cartel-like collusion by districts to reject co-location requests, even when it would be in their own or the public’s interest.

A new law enabling charters to circumvent district control and apply directly to universities for facilities has opened the door for Florida parents to choose Success Academy. Co-location allowed a proven charter network to expand into a region that it might otherwise have avoided because of opposition from district school boards and real estate limitations. If Success Academy grows in Florida, it will be due to a co-location pathway that prioritized parent choice over the district’s preferred status quo and anti-competitive efforts. As always, setting conditions for a free market in public education not only increases the number of high-performing school options, but more fundamentally respects the intelligence of low-income parents, affording them the same rights and dignity as wealthy parents to determine their child’s best interests.

Fostering market diversity by lowering entry cost

Educational choice is hollow without a meaningful array of diverse learning options. Many of the most innovative and responsive school models—such as those focused on STEM, the arts, or language immersion—serve smaller populations by design. These tailored programs often cannot sustain the cost of large standalone facilities that comply with the full suite of regulatory requirements imposed on traditional public schools.

Opening new schools is further complicated by the need for specialized infrastructure to accommodate students with disabilities, a requirement that drives up construction and leasing costs. In high-cost urban areas, these financial burdens make it especially difficult to launch niche or community-based school models.

Co-location policies help overcome these obstacles by allowing charter schools to share space and costs with existing district schools. This approach enables smaller schools to operate sustainably while still meeting regulatory and programmatic needs.

Importantly, co-location supports the creation of schools tailored to the most at-risk student populations—students who require support beyond the average classroom experience. Whether serving English language learners, teen parents, or students with autism, these specialized schools often lack the enrollment base to support a dedicated facility. Co-location eliminates a major financial and logistical barrier, allowing such schools to offer differentiated approaches that better serve their unique student communities.

Financial efficiency

Co-location policies allow charters to cost-share with existing district schools, creating financial efficiencies that benefit both parties. Vacant or underutilized district buildings provide ready-made educational infrastructure, reducing barriers to entry and eliminating the need for costly new construction. Nationally, infrastructure costs account for 10 percent of total expenditure per student, with interest on school debt adding another three percent. With co-location stretching limited resources further, district and charter schools can reinvest the savings in instruction, student support services, and extracurricular activities.

This shared use of space helps keep public dollars within the public education system. Rather than diverting funds to private landlords or construction lenders, charter operators help maintain and improve public assets owned by the district. Districts, and the public writ large, amortize their fixed costs over more students. The result is a better use of taxpayer money that supports a greater number of different learning environments for kids. In this way, co-location is not just a logistical solution for new charters; it maximizes the value of existing assets while allowing multiple school operators to retain their autonomy.

Benefits to district schools

Critics argue co‑location drains resources, but evidence shows the opposite: shared campuses often uplift district performance and climate. In New York City, for example, a longitudinal study found that when charter schools entered a district school campus, the district school saw gains of +0.08 standard deviations (SD) in math and +0.06 SD in reading. District schools within half a mile of a charter likewise saw an improvement of +0.02 SD. When a charter school moved in, the host district school saw statistically significant improvements in attendance and a 30 percent drop in grade retention, “holding back” students to repeat a school year. Effect sizes were especially pronounced among low-income and special-education subgroups.

These results suggest positive spillover effects for adjoining and nearby district schools. Co-located charter campuses appear to catalyze academic growth in their district neighbors, whether by modeling a high-quality school environment or exerting constructive competitive pressure. The pattern mirrors other data suggesting district schools improve when located near charter schools. In North Carolina, data from the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that district schools near charter openings had one percent higher test scores. The effect size was equivalent to reducing the average class size by 5.4 students, but without any additional spending.

Policy recommendations

Removing obstacles to opening new charters is essential to expand successful models to more communities. The following policy recommendations offer a blueprint for states looking to make co-location work at scale:

• Facilities access requirements: Mandate that districts offer charter schools access to underutilized or vacant public facilities at or below-market rates with explicit timelines, processes, and state oversight.
  
• State-level implementation entity: Establish a dedicated unit within state departments of education to monitor, enforce, and facilitate co-location laws. This body should focus on ensuring compliance, adjudicating disputes, and supporting coordination between districts and charter schools, reflecting the state’s proper role in regulating educational markets rather than directly operating schools.
  
• Centralized information hub: Establish systems for identifying and sharing available public school spaces. The hub should streamline requests and logistical procedures for co-location, with state approval and enforcement of fair access to public resources.
  
• Right of first refusal: Require districts to offer surplus facilities to charters before selling or leasing elsewhere. Empower a state-level entity to track and address complaints related to facility access, and enforce the right through state monitoring. In Rochester, a lack of enforcement mechanisms rendered a co-location policy ineffective, underscoring the need for active oversight to ensure compliance.
  
• Incentives for collaboration: Provide incentives for districts that offer facility space to charters, including access to shared financing, streamlined approval procedures for new facilities construction, and formally crediting district schools with some of their co-located charter school’s success.
  
• Formal district-charter compacts: Require contracts that define responsibilities for ongoing costs for upkeep, renovations, damages, and cooperative infrastructure usage. The state should set transparent, enforceable standards for facility pricing to prevent inflated costs or restrictive practices. Contracts should protect against exploitative contracts or manipulation that deters competition. They should also set agreements around requirements surrounding space logistics, such as pick up, drop off, cross-staff communication, and the like. Studies show that schools with defined dispute resolution mechanisms and collaborative agreements experience smoother operations, better communication, and higher academic outcomes.
  
• Intentional operational integration: Recommend coordinated use of shared spaces and regular cross-school leadership meetings. While not compulsory, examples like Denver’s co-location model demonstrate that intentional operational integration transforms co-location into meaningful partnerships, leading to shared curriculum planning, proactive problem-solving, and equitable resource distribution.
  
• Transparency and monitoring: Require public reporting of policy outcomes to ensure accountability and continuous improvement. Set up templates for simple, transparent financial reporting to evaluate equitable resource allocation. Create dispute resolution or appeals processes for charters contesting district decisions regarding facility access or costs. Ensure decisions prioritize public interest over district-level agendas.

Unlock public space to expand public choice

Co-location has emerged as one of the most practical, evidence-based, financially responsible ways for states to expand educational opportunity. Behind the momentum in two bellwether states, Florida and California, lawmakers are recognizing that there are myriad benefits to unlocking underutilized school infrastructure. The data are clear: co-location saves money for everyone, accelerates educational competition by introducing new charter options for parents, and raises academic performance for co-located district students.

By enacting well-crafted legislation, enforcing transparency, and encouraging formal collaboration, states can transform co-location from an ad hoc workaround into a cornerstone of smart public policy. It delivers more choice, more equity, and better results for all students—regardless of what type of school they attend. At a time of increasing polarization in education, co-location is a rare win-win: a fiscally responsible, academically sound strategy that serves students, parents, and the public interest alike.