Board hears how state 'Schools of Hope' changes could let charter operators co‑locate in district schools

District staff told the St. Lucie school board on Tuesday that recent state changes to the "Schools of Hope" program expand where operators may locate and allow co-location inside existing public schools, a shift the presenters said could impose unbudgeted facility and operational costs on districts.

The presenter summarized the statutory and rule changes and the district’s concern that the program’s geographic and co-location provisions now allow a School of Hope operator to apply to use underutilized or vacant space — or even share space inside an operating school — in many areas, including opportunity zones and locations that may be far from the persistently low‑performing schools the policy originally targeted.

“We're concerned because they can actually co locate in an existing operating school, and the school districts are responsible financially for the facility related services such as the custodial services, transportation, and so forth,” the presenter said, describing the change to co-location language and adding that the rule says facility services are provided “at no cost to the School of Hope operator.”

Staff said the rule also expanded the definition of a persistently low‑performing school and broadened site eligibility; combined with co-location language, that expansion led to a wave of applications that district staff said required rapid review after operators sent notices around the state on a single date in November. The presenter said about 690 building-notice applications were sent statewide on that date; many were denied locally because the applicants were not designated School of Hope operators.

Board members pressed staff on several operational questions: how space is measured (the "FISH" facilities report), how shared common spaces and calendars would work, who would be responsible for safety and building supervision, and whether the district could evict an operator that failed to meet safety standards. Staff said the statute creates a very narrow standard to deny a request — "material impracticability" — which the presenter noted is not defined in the statute, limiting a district’s options.

District leaders said they have submitted questions and suggested clarifications to the Department of Education during an ongoing board-rule development process and expect draft rule language to be published for review. Staff urged the board that any rulemaking or legislative fixes should narrow location eligibility, remove opportunity-zone language, and create clearer grounds to deny or impose reasonable cost-sharing for facility use.

The presenter said St. Lucie County received applications — including some for schools that were not designated by statute to request co-location — and that the district has denied applications from operators who were not qualified. Staff said they would continue to monitor DOE rulemaking and report back to the board on draft language and possible local impacts.

Board members expressed particular concern about security, staffing workloads and the need for either statutory fees or other financial structures so district taxpayers do not absorb the full cost of co-located operators.

The board did not take formal action; staff said they will continue to provide updates and proposed language for legislative or rule changes.