Editorial: State needs to revisit charter school rules

Legislation that created Minnesota charter schools two decades ago prohibited their operators from owning school buildings. At that time, the programs were new, experimental and in no position to take on the long-term financial commitment of a mortgage.

But as charters grew and became established, some found a way around the rule by setting up separate nonprofits to buy buildings.

As legitimate public schools, charter boards should not have to rely on legal loopholes to secure space. It's time for the state to reevaluate charter school facilities laws.

A recent Star Tribune story reported that more than 20 of Minnesota's 180 charter schools have secured permanent sites through an affiliated nonprofit. There have been no legal challenges to that arrangement. However, a 2003 legislative auditor's report said the practice circumvents the law and recommended it be reviewed by the state. It's time to have that review.

Generally charters have a much tougher time acquiring and funding facilities than traditional public schools. Charters have no taxing or bonding authority, so they can't impose taxes, hold referendums or issue bonds to fund facilities projects.

Because of that discrepancy, Minnesota passed a charter school lease aid law in 1997 that provided $1,500 per student to rent space. But that amount was reduced to $1,200 by the 2003 Legislature.

Minnesota is not alone in addressing charter facilities issues. Space challenges have grown along with the charter movement. Across the country, the number of charters has increased from about 2,700 schools serving 670,000 students in 2002-03 to more than 4,000 serving 1.2 million in 2007-08.

Nationally, 16 states and the District of Columbia provide some form of direct facilities aid to charters; 11 offer a per-pupil funding source, according to the Education Facilities Financing Center. Four states and the District of Columbia have their own publicly funded loan programs for charters.

For the same reasons that families and school districts choose owning over renting, it makes sense for charters to move in that direction. Many Minnesota alternative schools pay at least six figures to lease space. Those funds could be used to purchase buildings and build equity and value.

Still, a number of questions should be answered as state lawmakers and the Department of Education reconsider the law. Should new programs be required to rent for several years until they are established? What role should the state have in negotiating and overseeing the mortgage agreements? And when a charter closes, should the profit or losses from a building go to the state or school district?

Charter school students and families deserve quality facilities. The state should find ways to help them acquire stable, reasonably priced space that isn't vulnerable to the uncertainties of renting.