Education has a real estate problem

One building. But with separate entrances, schedules and staff cultures, it worked.

That experience shaped how I think about educational infrastructure — especially now, as I lead schools throughout the Southeast.

Because while the South does not have New York City’s real estate constraints, it does have a different problem: access to facilities.

Across the region, school facilities remain one of the biggest barriers preventing new schools from opening. Charter schools struggle to secure buildings. Community-based educational organizations often cannot afford construction costs. Even strong school models fail to launch because they cannot solve the facilities equation.

Credit: Contributed

Credit: Contributed

This challenge is not anecdotal. National research consistently shows that facilities access remains one of the greatest structural barriers facing public charter schools and emerging educational organizations.

Multiple studies have found charter schools receive substantially less funding per student than traditional public schools, in part because they often lack equitable access to facilities funding.

A widely cited analysis of major U.S. cities found that charter schools received approximately $7,100 less per pupil than traditional public schools on average, forcing many organizations to direct resources toward buildings and leases rather than classroom instruction, staffing and student support.

At the same time, many districts across the country are experiencing enrollment declines and rising building underutilization. In the Houston (Texas) Independent School District, for example, a recent analysis found that 97 campuses were operating at less than 60% of their permanent building capacity, leaving significant portions of educational infrastructure underused even as communities continue searching for ways to expand educational opportunity.

That contradiction should force educational leaders to ask harder questions about how school space is being utilized — especially in fast-growing Southern communities where demand for high-quality educational options continues to rise.

Across metro Atlanta, communities are navigating rapid growth, new housing development and changing enrollment patterns. As education leaders work to expand opportunity for students, facility access remains one of the most significant — and often overlooked — barriers. Before investing millions in new construction, we should be asking whether existing educational spaces are being fully utilized to meet the needs of families and communities.

That is exactly why I believe Georgia and the South should embrace smarter colocation strategies.

Not a copy-and-paste version of what exists in Northern cities — but an evolved model designed intentionally for Southern communities.

At Movement School, we already operate campuses with the physical capacity to serve far more students than we currently enroll. Most of our schools are built around a pre-K through elementary model. But I often think about the untapped opportunity sitting inside those walls.

What if another organization — perhaps a middle school operator — occupied part of the same building?

Of course, colocation only works when it is intentional. Safety has to be part of the design.

Different age groups should have separate entrances, separate wings, staggered schedules, and clear supervision plans. I understand why parents worry about older students sharing space with younger ones. Those concerns are valid. But thoughtful colocation is not about blending schools together. It is about creating structured, separate environments that happen to share infrastructure.

What if families could access a nearby K–12 pathway without every grade band needing to exist under one institutional umbrella?

What if facilities became shared community assets rather than isolated institutional trophies?

Colocation is not just a facilities strategy. It is a financial strategy, a community strategy and a growth strategy.

Colocation allows schools to share major operational costs — from rent and utilities to maintenance — freeing up more resources for teachers, programming and student support.

And it can lower startup costs for emerging schools, maximize existing community assets, reduce operational overhead and create opportunities for strategic partnerships.

But colocation should be complementary — not competitive.

I do not believe it makes sense to place two schools serving the same grade levels in the same building, competing for the same students. That creates unnecessary tension and instability.

Instead, colocation should strengthen pathways for families: elementary schools paired with middle schools, middle schools paired with high schools, organizations that extend opportunity rather than dilute one another.

The future of education in Georgia and across the South cannot simply be bigger buildings and higher costs. It has to be smarter systems.

School buildings are not trophies. They are tools. And when students need access to quality schools while classrooms sit underused, we should be willing to rethink how those tools are used.

Kerri-Ann T. Thomas is CEO of Movement School, a public charter school network serving students and families across Georgia and the Southeast.

If you have any thoughts about this item, or if you’re interested in writing an op-ed for the AJC’s education page, drop us a note at education@ajc.com.