Summarizes the current state of charter schools, indicating that charter schools tend to be smaller in size than public schools, and also illustrating the various, and often unconventional, facilities that they occupy. 24p.

Present key findings of an assessment of Colorado's charter school facilities that include: 1) Charter schools are forced to spend operating funds on their facilities. 2) Every year tens of thousands of Colorado students are denied a seat in a charter school because of a lack of available space. 3) Most charter schools have limited capacity to serve federally-subsidized meals for students from lower-income families. 4) Charter school facilities are too small. 5) Physical education and recreational options are limited for charter school students. 6) State grant funding for public school facilities has provided little benefit for charters. 7) Local bond elections are not a reliable source of funding for charter school facilities. 16p.

Describes how recipients of federal charter school facility grants implemented their activities, as outlined in their Program document. Findings include: 1) The Program provides for improved access of charter schools to capital markets for facilities; 2) The Program provides for better rates and terms on financing than would otherwise be available for the charter schools served by the Program Grantees; 3) Results regarding the differences between a vertically integrated model and a fully distributed model of service are preliminary: analysis does not provide conclusive evidence that favors one model over another; 4) Grantees used selection criteria to choose assisted schools that include: extent to which the applicant selects geographic service areas in which a large proportion or number of public schools have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; extent to which the applicant selects geographic service areas in which a large proportion of students perform below proficient on state academic assessments; and extent to which the applicant selected communities to serve with large proportions of low-income students; 5) Based on a review of loan-level data and information provided by Grantees and assisted schools, there was evidence that Grantees are using innovative methods, especially related to helping charter schools borrow directly from private lenders; and 6) Overall, the Grantees and assisted schools were highly positive about the Program and believe that it is making a difference in the market. Five appendixes include a glossary, interviews, census infomration, and 2002-2007. (Contains 15 footnotes and 31 exhibits.) 126p.

Describes the U.S. Department of Education awards made to grantees for charter school facilities from 2001 through 2008.

Since the first California charter school opened in 1993, policymakers have continued to add to and adapt state policies. This update focuses on current policy issues that concern charter school facilities, financial issues, and governance. 2p.

This provides a snapshot of the public and nonprofit financing programs for charter school facilities across the nation. The survey includes descriptions of financing products and geographic markets for 25 private nonprofit providers currently active in the sector and two public-private partnerships in Indianapolis and Massachusetts. It also details public initiatives for charter school facilities at both the federal and state levels, including descriptions of two grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education and four additional federal programs administered by diverse federal agencies, as well as a listing of all state-level grant, loan and credit enhancement programs in the 41 jurisdictions with a charter law. 48p.

Locating and paying for facilities has proved challenging for many charter schools in California—especially start-ups. As a result, state and federal lawmakers have taken steps to ease the problem. This describes facilities funding options in California.

Summarizes findings from the first national conference to discuss the real estate financing needs of the charter school movement. Topics covered include: charter school bond financing; uses and benefits of the U.S. Department of Education’s Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Grant; changing state public policy to improve financing options and gain access to capital markets; and achieving a national charter school vision. 12p.

Provides a summary of research on small schools and shared facilities showing that, on average, smaller schools provide a safer and more challenging school environment that leads to higher academic achievement and graduation rates, fewer disciplinary problems, and greater satisfaction for families, students, and teachers. Also includes 22 case studies of public schools in 11 states, representing urban, suburban, and rural communities; district-run and charter public schools; and co-housing of almost 50 schools and social service agencies. These studies document the ability of smaller schools to improve academic achievement and behavior in safe, nurturing, and stimulating environments. The studies further suggest that sharing facilities with other organizations can enable schools to offer broader learning opportunities for students, provide higher quality services to students and their families, and present a way to efficiently use tax dollars. 68p.

Describes awards from the U.S. Department of Education to the following: Center for Community Self-Help, Durham, N.C.; Charter Schools Development Corporation, Washington, D.C.; Community Loan Fund of New Jersey, Inc.; KIPP Foundation, San Francisco, Cal.; Local Initiatives Support Corporation, New York, N.Y.; and Raza Development Fund, Phoenix, Ariz.

Summarizes facilities funding and assistance offered by the 40 states that have enacted charter school laws. Each summary includes types of school district property that a charter school may occupy and at what costs, and types and amounts of grants and loans that charter schools may obtain to build or renovate facilities. 4p.

Reports on the 2005-2006 work of the Fund in helping to finance charter school facilities. A profile of the Memphis Academy of Health Sciences is included, as is advice for schools with building projects, and an explanation of how lenders can use tax credits to help low- income schools. 4p.

Some states have passed state charter school facilities laws that provide per-pupil facilities aid for charter schools. This provides summaries of laws from California, District of Columbia, Minnesota, and Utah, including links to the legislation and regulations for each state.

Provides fourteen worksheets to help organize real estate projects for nonprofit charter schools and early childhood programs. The worksheets guide the user from assessing readiness before the project through occupancy, with advice on determining affordability, choosing capital campaign consultants, borrowing, budgeting, selecting the project's design and construction professionals, occupancy budgeting, and applying for tax exemption. 41p.

The Secretary of Education issues regulations to administer the State Charter School Facilities Incentive program. Under this program, the Department of Education provides competitive grants to States to help charter schools meet their need for facilities. These regulations are effective January 20, 2006.

Examines the history, present condition, and unique features of the charter school movement in the District of Columbia. Challenges to the movement are discussed, including the significant challenge of access to and funding for facilities. 40p.

Examines charter school funding in 16 states and the District of Columbia, determining that charter schools are significantly underfunded relative to district schools, funding discrepancies are even wider in most big urban school districts, the chief culprit is charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding, and that quality data is often unavailable. Individual reports for each state are included, policy issues and implications are detailed, and the methodology of the study is described. 141p.

Provides a national directory of private nonprofit and public providers of funding and financing for charter school facilities. Based on research and interviews with over 50 charter school stakeholders, the survey includes descriptions of financing products and geographic markets for the 21 private nonprofit providers currently active in the sector. The report also describes two public-private partnerships that have recently been developed in Indianapolis and Massachusetts. Public initiatives are also detailed, including explanations of and awardee information for two federal grant programs, three federal tax credit/bond financing programs, and an listing of state-level funding, loan, and credit enhancement programs currently authorized in the 41 jurisdictions with a charter law. The report includes available web site and statutory references, with active links in the electronic version. 24p.

This describes the key characteristics of new markets tax credits, key issues in implementation, results so far, and their future potential. Includes a case study of how Excellent Education Development, Inc.(ExEd) used new markets tax credits to create facilities for charter schools in low income Los Angeles County communities. 63p.

This paper is a primer for school boards and management. It provides a basic overview of the key issues, considerations and options associated with the use of debt by private schools to address facility financing needs. In addition, for a school which has decided to pursue debt financing, it provides basic guidelines for the choice of debt modality and structure depending on that school's finances, type and amount of financing sought and the financial environment at the time of the planned borrowing. The paper discusses tax-exempt and taxable debt, bank loans, publicly-offered and privately placed bond issues and the use of derivative product (interest rate swaps, caps, etc.) in school financings. 34p.

Presents research that addresses the wariness that lenders and landlords often have concerning charter schools as clients. One commonly cited survey appears to show that nearly one in ten charter schools has "closed." However, the schools thus counted include many that just changed organizational structure, and continued to occupy and pay on their buildings. Even when buildings are prematurely vacated, 95% are able to be leased or sold on terms no less favorable to the lender or landlord. Charter schools started in conjunction with Education Management Organizations (EMOs) were found to have almost negligible failure rates. Also, charter schools with more students are less risky than average, as are those started one year or more after the home state passes a charter law. Finally, and ironically, the inability to find adequate buildings is itself a key contributor to charter school failures. 10p.

Small schools are located in a variety of different environments. The majority of small schools must share a physical building with other schools and must negotiate the use of the shared space. This outlines some tips for creating more successful shared facility situations for small schools, including: ensure autonomy between schools; develop strong working relations between school leadership; communicate a commitment from the higher administration; ensure regular communication between principals; define a conflict resolution process; establish a neutral facilities coordinator; and create a shared facilities memorandum of understanding. 4p.

Provides charter schools with step-by-step assistance in planning, evaluating, and implementing a facilities project. The guide is organized by each stage of the development process, from early project concept and feasibility to final construction closeout and occupancy, and is divided into six sections: concept phase, development phase, facility design and pre-construction, financing the project, construction, and planning and scheduling. [Free registration required] 120p.

Offers advice on how to secure facilities for a charter school, following an outline of four steps: 1)developing a facilities plan, 2)assessing building/site needs, 3)selecting and evaluating a site, and 4)financing the site. Also provided is a list of site options, examples of how several schools creatively found and financed their facilities, and links to a list of resources on facilities. 4p.

Reports on the 2003-2004 work of the Fund in helping to finance charter school facilities. Lessons learned by the Fund administrators are detailed, and profiles of two loan recipients are included. 5p.

Offers guidance on construction of a new building, addition, or renovation of a magnet or charter school. Twelve exemplary projects are described, followed by guidance on funding, finding a home for the charter school, designing for autistic students, specialized school design, technology, site design and landscape architecture for urban schools, acoustics, indoor air quality, sustainable design, and design-build project delivery. A draft charter school operations plan and 36 references are included. 228p.

Examines major approaches charter schools use to secure facilities. The focus is on four new start charter schools in California which are aligned with common charter school facility arrangements and distinct categories of funding: self-funded, publicly funded, privately funded, and funded through in-kind donations. Findings revealed that although funds from operating budgets were used as the primary source of facility revenue, every charter school relied on multiple sources to secure and maintain facilities. Whereas self- funding was used by the schools leasing facilities, private donations and loans were also necessary for the schools financing capital expenditures. Schools that relied on the most revenue sources also allocated the greatest amount of their operating budget to facilities. In-kind donations were not a revenue source for these schools. Other facility dimensions, the extent to which state policies were implemented on a local level, and lack of land and affordable buildings affected each schools ability to secure facilities. None of the schools were able to leverage funds from bond proceeds due to strict requirements for borrowing. Consistent with previous research on charter school facilities, the lack of access to adequate facilities was the greatest barrier to entry for these schools. 05/01/2005p.

This brief explores the ways in which authorizers can, indirectly and directly, affect a school’s ability to obtain the financing necessary for a schoolhouse. Part I examines the indirect impact: how the quality of the authorizer, as perceived by a financial institution, can affect loan decisions. Part II considers the direct, proactive roles that some authorizers have taken to help schools meet their facilities financing needs. 12p.

A plan for the renovation of and improvements to the Nichols Avenue School building and site in the District of Columbia, for the future home of Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School. This "how-to" manual is designed for individuals interested in modernizing or building new public school facilities in their neighborhoods. Modeled after an innovative public-private development partnership, this tool details the importance of school facilities and community involvement, then explains the five basic steps to planning a new school or renovating an existing building: assessment, envisioning, planning, development and implementation. [Author's abstract] 46p.

This report outlines innovative ways school districts are meeting their facilities needs outside the traditional sources of facilities financing. Non-traditional funding strategies include private development of public school buildings, partnerships with employer-based schools, direct borrowing on the private market, and sale or lease of existing school facilities. Cost-saving solutions include space-sharing with community agencies or with higher education, and educating outside the school building using community resources or distance learning. New institutional solutions include establishing real estate trusts and intermediaries. Included are specific examples of how districts are implementing these strategies, and a list of additional readings on these topics. 16p.

This monograph describes how funders can best support the charter school movement. Chapters include: 1) A Movement Comes to a Crossroads After a Decade of Growth; 2) Four Strategic Priorities; 3) Building a Robust Supply of High-quality New Schools; 4) Addressing Critical Operational Challenges; 5) Improving Charter School Quality Controls; 6) Forging Charter-Friendly Public Policies; 7) Making Grants and Investments Count; 8) The Next Phase of Philanthropic Support. [You must be registered with the LISC Online Resource Library in order to download the free document.] 75p.

This study examines the facilities experiences of charter schools in fourteen states and the District of Columbia, jurisdictions that house 75 percent of the nations charter schools. The findings substantiate and detail the belief that facilities are the number one hurdle for charter school developers. Researchers conducted over 100 interviews with representatives of public schools, including charter schools and charter school networks; federal, state and local public education officials; representatives of public school advocacy groups, partners, and resource centers; and representatives of the real estate and finance communities. This report documents the shared experiences of charter schools with innovative financing mechanisms, private sector involvement in facilities financing, and the use of instructional revenue for the repayment of debt. It also offers recommendations for public and private sector participants. [Authors' abstract.] 68p.

This piece offers an outline of steps to follow to secure school facilities. Four basic steps in the process are (1) developing a facilities plan, (2) assessing building/site needs, (3) selecting and evaluating a site, and (4) financing the site. This page also provides a list of Site Options with examples that illustrate how several schools creatively found and financed their facility, and links to a list of Resources on facilities.

Assists with space and facility planning for charter schools, with particular attention to New Hampshire's charter school laws. The document outlines the work of the facility committee or team, offers succinct space planning considerations for the various instructional and non- instructional spaces, and advises on air and water quality, asbestos, fire safety, hazardous materials, security, playgrounds, and transportation. Additional space cost considerations for new construction or existing spaces, as well as re-use of civic, organization, commercial, retail, or industrial spaces are also included. 106p.

Presents a conceptual plan for locating a law-related charter high school to a small, historic neighborhood school building. The deficiencies described include lack of administrative, physical education, cafeteria, and assembly spaces, and sufficient classroom space. Site plans illustrate the design remedies and are accompanied by cost estimates. 59p.

This study analyzed federal and state charter school laws, addressing challenges faced by charter school startups nationwide, state resources available to address these challenges, and how the District of Columbia compares in terms of charter school challenges and resources. The three greatest challenges facing new charter schools were securing a facility, obtaining startup funding, and acquiring the expertise necessary to run a charter school. Challenges facing District schools are similar to those nationwide, although obtaining facilities is particularly difficult in the District due to the cost of real estate and poor conditions of available buildings. To offset this, the District provides charter schools with various forms of assistance. 39p.

This examines charter school finance policies across the 50 states, and answers the question: Does the state provide facilities funds or other facilities assistance to charter schools? This also provides information on the source of funding for charter schools, how the per-pupil funding level is determined, whether or not the state provides start-up and/or planning grants, and which states must provide transportation to charter school students. 11p.

Much like office buildings that house several companies, a school building can house several autonomous schools, each with their own administration, faculty and budgets. This toolkit describes examples of schools sharing buildings in Chicago, and gives practical advice for how to do this successfully. Recommendations include: establish a commitment to shared equitable space; build and maintain stong working relationships; support school identity and autonomy with visual cues; plan for the future with a memorandum of understanding; develop a conflict resolution process; capitalize on the benefits of building sharing. 23p.

Guidelines on charter school construction costs, site options, and building code requirements and regulations. Besides constructing a new facility, this describes creative options for housing a charter school, such as leasing unused space from the public school district, using state owned facilities, using corporate partnerships, or sharing community facilities. This is a chapter from the 2003 Resource Guide, a comprehensive downloadable .pdf outlining the procedures for starting a charter school in New York State. p237-242

Chapter 13 of this handbook describes various facilities financing options including internal funding from operating funds, capital campaigns, traditional bank loans, loan guarantees from other entities, modular buildings, multi-use facility, or occupancy in existing school building. An accompanying chart lists the pros and cons of these options. p113-123

A team from Princeton University's School of Architects followed a group of innovative educators in the Bronx High Schools as they rethought the architecture of small schools. Seeking to imagine the creation of educational spaces where students and teachers can truly learn through collaboration and challenge the traditional ways of thinking about size and scale, this report responds to the diversity of the Bronx, and offers ideas as to how to reclaim space administrative and obsolete spaces for use as classrooms. This toolkit's proposed strategy for the successful incubation and growth of new small schools begins with architecture, but also suggests the formation of design teams to take non-architectural interventions such as graphic design, furniture organization and educational planning just as seriously. 80p.

Details the experience of the Moscow Charter School (Idaho) in obtaining a facility, from its beginnings in a church basement to the creation of its own new facility. The narrative is offered as a means for other charter schools to learn from this school's successes and failures. A list of variables that affect the financing of charter school facilities is included. 34p.

Qualified Public Education Facility Bonds (QPEFs) are a potential funding mechanism for both charters and public schools. QPEFs are a type of exempt facility bond created under section 422 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. QPEFs allows state or federal agencies to enter into a public-private partnership with a for-profit organization, under which the for-profit agrees to construct, rehabilitate, refurbish or equip a public school facility. The bond proceeds are loaned to a private, for-profit corporation (developer) who owns the school facility and leases it to a public school. At the end of the lease term, ownership of the school facility is transferred to the public school for no additional consideration. This information packet includes; 1) IRS technical information on QPEFs; 2) a reprint of the Heritage Foundation report "How Public-Private Partnerships Can Facilitate Public School Construction" by Ronald Utt, and 3) IRS Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues. 30p.

In its semi-annual report on the charter school debt sector, Fitch notes the increasing demand for alternative educational choices, including charter schools, home and private schooling, and the resulting suffering in public school district enrollment and revenue from this educational competition. However, newer charter schools attempting to get their bonds rated will still most likely receive below investment-grade ratings.

This paper attempts to identify benchmark considerations when entertaining the question of private management of public school facilities. Management possibilities include contracting for services and charter conversion. The paper also highlights elements of contract law pertinent to formal agreements made between school districts and private providers. In the early stages of doing business with private providers, care must be taken to control the spin of public opinion. Building support for reform efforts is an incremental process requiring a constant flow of factual information, anecdotal evidence, and independent research findings. Emphasis must be placed on beginning contract negotiations early in the process to ensure that all provisions are artfully crafted and meet with broad acceptance--particularly important when negotiating how those provisions affect existing labor agreements. The paper includes a suggested list of contract contents, starting with recitals/preamble; definitions; establishment or determination of school sites; term of agreement and starting date; mission statement; goals, objectives, and pupil performance standards; and financial arrangements, among other provisions. This list provides a starting point for drafting the contract between school authorities and a school management vendor.

This policy report reviews the history of the six-year debate over the federal role in school construction that continues to be centered on the details for various tax credit proposals, including whether or not Davis-Bacon wage requirements would apply to these projects. This also discusses the difficulties charter schools have accessing facilities financing due to their brief operating histories, length of charters, and a high risk factor. This report makes two suggestions: 1) break the link between charter facilities aid and school construction and fund the so called Carper-Gregg initiatives, which authorize federal funds to serve as credit enhancement and to match state charter school facilities funding; and 2) establish State or Regional Infrastructure Banks as a broad federal approach to school construction. 6p.

This paper asserts that instead of assuming that the future of learning has to take place in buildings we happen to have now, districts can let innovations in instruction and learning drive how they provide, design, and use school buildings. With this goal in mind, this paper looks at five trends in education and what they imply about the kinds of buildings and spaces districts will need for tomorrow’s schools. The five trends are: (1) pressure on schools to perform for all students, not just those who learn best in traditional settings; (2) demands for the personalization of learning, so that every child has a chance to learn and families have choices; (3) new technologies that will change how teachers teach and students learn; (4) periodic shortages of teachers (and school leaders) linked to swings in the economy; and (5) shifts in student population and residency patterns that will affect not only the demand for schools, but also the demands on schools. Suggested strategies include developing smaller schools, sharing buildings between multiple schools, adapting facilities for both commercial and educational uses, and partnerships with companies and organizations outside the education sector. The paper also includes an extensive case study on the high school built by the public-private partnership of the Niagara Falls City School District and Honeywell, Inc. The case study includes specifics on the financing deal, the flow of funds, tax strategies, and risk management. 29p.

In December 1998, New York State passed charter legislation allowing 100 new charter schools and an unlimited number of public schools to convert to charter status. The charter law has provided "discount funding," prohibited charter schools from using public-sources funds for facility purchase or improvement, and added managerial responsibilities on the principals. Consequently, charter schools in New York City had to seek out sources of support in the form of institutional partners and/or friend organizations. This study was conducted to examine and track such relationships between 14 New York City charter schools having various types of relationships with partnering organizations. Open-ended interviews were conducted with school administrators, teachers, and representatives of participating organizations. Results show that partnering organizations are smaller systems, are more responsive, and provide greater efficiency in a more personal manner compared with support structures for traditional public schools. However, intervention of institutional partners challenged charter schools' administrators' authority and affected school governance. Implications are that if funding for charter schools does not increase, then reliance on partnering organizations will also increase. It would be prudent for educators and policymakers to consider how the implementation of charter law can affect school-level decision-making and charter schools' autonomy. 15p.

Nonprofit organizations, private foundations, and for-profit corporations interested in shaping public education regularly partner with charter schools in New York. State law allows charter schools to pursue external partners to help meet their fiscal, facilities, operational, and instructional needs. This qualitative study of 10 schools in New York City examines how the relationship between charter school and external partner affects school autonomy and the school's relationships with teachers, parents, and community members. Data were collected through interviews with school staff and representatives of partner organizations, and through observations of meetings, daily school operations, and school-related events. The samples studied suggest that the fiscal and operational burdens of running a charter school necessitate affiliation with an institutional partner. However, partnering brings its own set of problems, particularly unclear authority and accountability. The study reveals that a school's decision-making authority is limited, and its relationships with teachers, parents, and community members can become complicated when issues of authority and accountability are not absolutely clear. The study concludes that when institutional partners do not involve teachers, parents, and community members in creating a vision for the school, the potential for tension among the various stakeholders remains high.

Fitch Ratings published this Special Report, which reaffirms its belief that schools without three to ten years of successful operating history or substantial credit enhancing features will find earning an investment-grade rating very difficult. However, they also believe that schools do exist that have attractive stories and promising potential, despite some degree of risk. Within the charter school sector, Fitch sees the trends of 1) heightened scrutiny, 2) funding challenges and competition with school districts, 3) unions and unionization, 4) continued capital funding challenges, and 5) a challenging environment for some for-profit managers, coupled with the current Supreme Court case regarding school vouchers, all contributing to a volatile environment for charter schools.

This publication summarizes research on the educational and social benefits of small schools and the negative effects of large schools on students, teachers, and members of the community, as well as the "diseconomies of scale" inherent in large schools. It asserts that research shows that measuring the cost of education by graduates rather than by all students who go through the system suggests that small schools are a wise investment. Using data drawn from 489 schools submitted to design competitions in 1990-2001, the publication concludes that small schools can be built cost effectively and that many districts are doing so. 31p.

This publication helps communities reduce the costs of maintaining, building, and renovating good, small schools. It includes specific strategies that rural communities have used to reduce the costs of their small schools. It begins by suggesting factors to consider before starting to plan a school facilities project, such as understanding the resistance to small schools that many administrators and legislators may have, and also understanding the importance of examining and questioning state policies. It continues by providing a total of 13 strategies for reducing costs including the importance of good maintenance and siting and using renovation instead of resorting to new construction. The book ends with an extensive list of resources for further information on the strategies.

Information on a program offering assistance to community schools (also known as charter schools) to help meet their facility needs. The program is administered by the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Through this program, Ohio community schools can apply for a State guarantee for a loan to the Governing Board of the community school from a bank chartered by the United States or the State of Ohio.

This technical assistance guide for charter school leaders discusses the ways in which charter schools can benefit from collaboration with an established community-based organization. Several facilities-related benefits include: 1) saving money by sharing staff and facilities; 2) tapping the facilities expertise of community-based organization; and 3) obtaining capital more easily due to the community-based organization's established banking relationships.

This paper discusses the policy and political issues surrounding school construction, and it illustrates how infrastructure banks would work to address this challenge. The paper explores the problems of overcrowding and crumbling schools, details the struggle many communities and States have in expanding their efforts to solve these problems, and reviews the policy and political issues within the current school construction debate. The author argues for the establishment of State or regional school construction infrastructure banks to help capitalize and leverage State and local resources and ensure customization and flexibility for the variety of schools that exist. The paper also explains how school infrastructure banks are the most efficient vehicle that the federal government can use to empower States and communities to address their new facilities issues. The report includes 14 endnotes. 12p.

This report presents survey findings about the U.S. charter school system that were collected from 280 schools in 19 states with over 80,000 students. The two-part report examines the responses to a short list of questions about facility costs and growth plans, and it explores information provided by a subset of schools - 118 institutions - that completed longer survey instruments covering a wider range of questions about schools' facilities experiences and challenges. Among the findings are that the majority of charter schools in the survey lease their facilities, that fewer than one in seven charter schools receive "free" facilities, and that the average cost for facilities is $191,553 or $690 per student. The study also found that charter school challenges may become more acute in coming years due to planned growth, that nearly six out of 10 responders indicated plans to expand their facilities, and that the average plan is for an increase in enrollment of 63 percent or higher. The report further details the types of facilities used by charter schools; facility ownership, size, and space sharing; experience of obtaining financing; and the limitations and challenges arising from facilities issues. An appendix contains information on how the data for the report was collected. 17p.

Recent California legislation (Senate Bill 1759, Chapter 586, Statutes of 2000) makes significant changes to the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund (Education Code sections 41365 through 41367). This provides general information and instructions to charter schools and charter authorizing entities about applying for a revolving loan.

Part of a larger section on budget, finance, and fundraising issues for charter schools. Provides some examples of financing arrangements and lists special funds to help charter schools with facilities. Links to additional information on state funding.

This document examines three locations that schools have utilized in partnership with private enterprises to help ease school overcrowding: downtown areas, airports, and malls. The downtown model serves students whose parents work in a downtown area. The mall model targets high school students who want an alternative education with job training. The airport model provides a school with space on airport grounds so that students of airport employees can attend school. These initiatives help local school districts save funds that would otherwise be used to construct facilities, freeing up resources for other district needs. Students benefit from smaller class sizes and unique educational opportunities afforded to them by the school location and interaction with local businesses. Students and parents also benefit from the creative scheduling that the schools offer by working around the parents' schedules. 19p.

This report determines the degree to which charter schools have access to traditional public school facility financing, and whether alternative sources of facility financing are available to charter schools. Further discussed are potential options generally available to the federal government if it were to assume a larger role in charter school facility financing. It reports that charter schools generally do not have access to municipal bonds, the most common source of facility financing, and that charter schools that are part of local school districts might not share in local or state school construction funds. State charter school laws vary, and few of them address facility financing or provide funding for school construction or improvements, purchasing, or leasing buildings for use by charter schools. Sources of charter school financing include allocation of education funds from state, loans, and private donations; however, such funding may not adequately cover costs or are not widely available to charter schools. The federal government can broaden its role in financing charter school facilities through grants, direct loans, loan guarantees, loan pools, tax-exempt bonds, and tax credits. Appendices provide a comparison of state legislation on charter school independence, a summary of state legislation on how charter schools obtain facilities, and comments from the Department of Education. 28p.

Charter schools often have difficulty obtaining capital financing and the funds needed to cover initial operating expenses and other start-up costs. This one of the most challenging obstacles that charter schools face, but state legislators can make it easier. They can advance education reform by implementing favorable charter school financing policies. Here are some policies lawmakers should consider implementing in their states to alleviate financing burdens on charter schools.

This guidebook provides basic information to assist charter schools in accessing the federal programs and resources available to them through the U. S. Department of Education. The programs selected are those that are commonly considered the most beneficial to charter schools. 70p.

Discusses the background and origins of the initative, lessons learned, major products, partnerships, and future initiatives.

This report discusses strategies that will help charter schools finance their facilities needs. It outlines the history of the Colorado Charter Schools Act, focusing on the contracting process, on dispute resolution and appeals, on renewal, on employee options, and on revenue allocation. The document also examines issues surrounding school operations under the Charter Schools Act. It looks at financing guidelines, types of facilities in use by Colorado charter schools, the quality of charter-school facilities, how schools acquired their facilities, and tax-exempt bond financing. Some of the roadblocks to successful charter-school capital finance involve revenue streams, limited access to tax-exempt financing, uncertainty regarding public school status, perceptions of risk, and a scarcity of resources. The document provides a general overview of the finance mechanisms used by public schools to obtain capital for their facilities needs, as well as the potential availability of these mechanisms for charter school use, such as conduit financing, loan pools, and credit enhancement. The report closes by making 15 policy recommendations that policymakers should consider as they deal with charter schools' facilities concerns. 65p.

This report examines the laws, regulations, and practices governing charter-school finance during the 1998-99 school year. This chapter discusses facilities funding issues. p69-78

This manual provides information to help charter schools navigate the facility development process, including worksheets that can be customized to suit a particular school's needs. Sections cover how facility planning fits into business planning for charter schools, review a process for assessing a school's facility needs, and summarize how to select a site and compare those found. Additionally, the manual includes an overview of construction and budgeting issues for a facility project, reviews sources of financing a project, provides a project timeline, and offers a glossary of terms to clarify technical issues in the facility development process. Appendices contain model forms for developing operating and capital budgets, balance sheets, cash flow projections, and a sample application for a National Cooperative Bank (NCB) Development Corporation charter school loan.

Charter-school leaders are finding many ways to solve the housing problem. This paper examines practices that may offer guidance to those starting new schools. For example, charter schools have found homes in museums, YMCAs, restored schoolhouses, and even in a moviehouse, and some have formed productive partnerships with businesses. Given a per-pupil allotment for facilities, some schools have found they can lease or fix up space on a pay-as-you-go basis. Others have had to finance at least part of the costs, but there are a variety of options for doing so.

This technical assistance memo examines the three most significant risks for charter school lenders: Operations, Real Estate/Project Planning, and Political. The memo explores the causes of each risk and offers advice on how best to mitigate it. Examples of how community development financial institutions (CDFI’s) around the country have alleviated these risks, as well as links to other resources, are provided. [You must be registered with the LISC Online Resource Library in order to download the free document.] 16p.

This guidebook provides charter schools with ideas when seeking financing, and touches on the issues they often face regarding appropriate site, managing the construction and renovation process, and facility operation that is safe and economical. Ideas presented are based on experiences of real charter schools. The document is organized around four major means by which charter schools can meet the facility's financing challenge. The first section addresses financing preparation and provides tools that can help facilities in crafting business, accountability, and facility-development plans. The second section addresses creative ways to accumulate the amount charter schools need to finance. The third section explains how aggressive shopping, exploring low-cost forms of financing, looking for ways to make their deals less risky, and pursuing other strategies can help these schools reduce the interest rates they pay for financing. The fourth section explains how charter schools can improve public policies regarding these facilities, obtain per-pupil revenue for charter schools, and bring about other helpful changes. 40 p.

The charter school movement is perhaps the fastest-growing reform movement in education. But with this speed comes increasing pressure for facilities. Traditional public schools, facing enrollment growth, deteriorating facilities, and efforts to reduce class sizes, are utilizing an innovative option to address their own demands for facilities. Over thirty satellite, or work-site, schools operate in partnership with local school districts. This partnership between the private sector and school organizers presents a viable option for charter school leaders, business partners, and children.

This report outlines five options state policymakers can pursue to enable charter schools to gain access to suitable, high-quality facilities: 1)creating new revenue streams for facilities cost; 2)giving charter schools access to low-cost financing; 3)creating or stimulating finance pools for charter schools; 4)providing incentives for organizations to supply facilities; and 5)considering other ways to improve the facilities climate. Examples of existing efforts are provided for each of these options. The report also highlights some actions groups other than state policymakers, i.e., Congress, local officials, and charter friends groups that can help ease the charter facilities challenges. Appendices provide a breakdown of how some states handle per-pupil facilities funding for charter schools as well as a list of resources on charter school facilities financing. 23p.

This answers questions and provides further references on such topics as federal funding available to charter schools; eligibility of charter schools to receive federal Title I funds; school districts charging charter schools to use district-owned facilities; guidelines for drawing up a lease with a charter school.

Presents a case study of Leadership High School that describes key strategies and challenges in starting and running a charter school. The third installment in the study describes a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby the school obtained daytime use of a local higher education institution's night school spaces. 21p.

This workbook is the first in a series devoted to all areas of charter-school development. It addresses the logistics of starting a school, such as drafting a charter, creating a vision and mission, accessing expert information, navigating the application process, acquiring a facility, and establishing a legal entity. Facilities and financing are discussed in chapter five along with the development of a needs assessment and how to identify possible sites.

Online chapter from a comprehensive guide to charter school development. Includes what Minnesota law says, what other developers say, useful insights, useful questions to consider, regulations, space, costs, facility factors, Minnesota examples, and resources.

Preliminary report on research conducted by Bryan Hassel, a North Carolina-based education and policy consultant, on charter school facilities financing.

This paper examines a facility planning model according to which charter schools can maximize their chances of succeeding in the effort to secure permanent facilities. The model includes a facility feasibility element that sets the scale and quality that project charter schools can and should realistically aim to accomplish; an occupancy cost element that determines the level of total facility cost charter schools can and should bear; and a credit standard element that determines key financing and operating criteria that charter schools must be able and willing to meet to acquire permanent facilities either through leases or mortgages. The paper also includes a summary of leading facility financing arrangements currently in use by charter schools, and presents recommendations for enhancing charter school facility financing alternatives to benefit more charter schools and to advise prospective facility financing providers. 25p.

This report presents a study of charter schools' use of startup grants and grants under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For this research, case studies were conducted in 7 states that accounted for 91 percent of charter schools operating in the 1996-97 school year. The results indicate that these schools used federal startup funds for a variety of purposes, including school equipment and curriculum materials, technology, and facilities renovation or leasing. The findings suggest that charter schools have not been systematically denied access to Title I and IDEA funds and that the barriers charter schools face in accessing these funds appear to have no relation to charter schools' tr