Recent news stories have raised questions about how South Carolina’s public charter schools fund their buildings and manage long-term costs. These reports suggest charter schools are taking on unnecessary financial risk. The reality is more complicated, and it’s a story that often goes untold.
Charter schools operate in a system that wasn’t designed to support them fairly. Just like a traditional public school, they don’t charge tuition, they welcome all students, and they answer directly to the state. Nearly 70,000 students in South Carolina attend 111 charter schools because families wanted a public education that better fits their children’s needs. These schools operate under performance contracts and can be closed if they fail. They’re held accountable in ways many traditional systems are not.
But when it comes to funding facilities, charter schools are on uneven footing. Traditional district schools can build and improve their buildings using local tax revenue and voter-approved bonds. That system spreads costs broadly and allows long-term investments with public backing.
For example, when a charter school in South Carolina needs a permanent facility, it cannot go to local voters for a bond referendum the way a district can. Instead, charter schools often partner with a financing organization that can access private capital to build or renovate a building. That partner assumes the upfront financial risk and is repaid over time through the school’s operating funds. While this approach comes at a higher cost than traditional public financing, it allows students to learn in safe, permanent facilities that would otherwise be out of reach. This is not a preferred model. It is a solution created by a system that excludes charter schools from the most affordable public funding tools.
This is not reckless behavior; it’s a necessity in the face of an unequal system.
Critics frame these financial strategies as unusual or risky, but managing resources across multiple schools is not unique to charters. Traditional districts do the same, balancing responsibilities and resources across their entire system. Charter networks are simply doing what’s required to remain stable and sustainable, often taking risks that other public schools never have to consider, because the funding system leaves them little choice.
The real story is that charter schools continue to grow, meet the needs of families, and deliver results even as they navigate a system stacked against them. More families are choosing charter schools because they offer innovative teaching approaches, specialized programs, and unique opportunities for their children to reach their full potential.
If South Carolina is serious about treating all public school students fairly, then facilities funding must be part of that conversation. Public charter school students should not be educated in a system where their schools must pay more to access less. Policymakers have an opportunity to fix this imbalance and support a growing sector that is delivering results for families. The question isn’t whether charter schools can manage these challenges—it’s whether the state is willing to address them.