Florida explores tighter rules for charter school co-location

The Florida Department of Education held an online workshop Monday to collect feedback on how to revise and clarify its rules on the co-location of Schools of Hope charter schools in under-used district buildings.

The session left frustration in its wake.

The department did not present any proposed language on the measure, simply asking participants to submit ideas for how the rule should look. The workshop sat largely silent over an hour, as people sent written remarks that others couldn’t see. All microphones were muted except for that of moderator Adam Emerson, director of the department’s office of school choice.

Emerson would log in from time to time to thank everyone for their insights on topics such as student transportation and school security, which he said would be considered as the staff writes the update.

“I just wasted an hour,” said Damaris Allen, executive director of Families for Strong Public Schools, an advocacy group that has called for a repeal of the Schools of Hope rules and law, which was expanded in 2025.

After the expansion, school districts received hundreds of requests to use classrooms in campuses identified as being under-capacity. State law says the districts would have to provide space and services free of charge.

The Manatee County school district calculated that the requirement would cost it $2,544 per new student, WUSF reports.

“There were concerned parents and community members on there,” Allen said of the online workshop. “We are being ignored every step of the way and it is very frustrating.”

They shared screen shots of their submitted questions and comments, such as whether public school parents will have the chance to vote on whether a School of Hope can use their campus before it takes place. The answers were not forthcoming.

Emerson repeatedly said he did not know what the rule will say. Subjects that likely will be addressed include clearer definitions of how to count available space, limits on the number of co-location applications per operator, and more explanation on what services a district would have to provide without cost.

One commenter asked for more explicit details about what “material impracticability,” the main avenue for a district to deny co-location, might entail. Emerson said that definition was “purposely broad” to allow for leeway in appeal hearings, and would probably stay that way.