One of our early mentors in public education often said, “It’s not what people don’t know that’s the problem. It’s what they know that is no longer true that is really the problem.”
Charter schools and traditional public school districts are often portrayed as competitors. Yet Idaho’s experience suggests there may be valuable lessons districts can learn from the way public charter schools have approached facility financing.
Start with a simple fact: Idaho law prohibits public charter schools from receiving local property tax revenue for facilities through bonds, levies, or other local tax measures. Charter schools know firsthand how difficult it is to build and finance school facilities without local taxpayer support. Increasingly, however, traditional school districts are facing similar challenges as voters reject local levies and bonds. As Idaho Education News has reported, many districts now find themselves confronting the same financing realities that charter schools have navigated for years.
Despite having no access to local tax dollars for facilities, Bluum and its partners have helped build 24 school facilities over the past decade, creating 12,809 new student seats. These projects represent more than 1.09 million square feet of educational space at a total cost of $263 million—all without relying on local taxpayer funding.
The key to this success has been partnership. Idaho’s charter school facility ecosystem depends on collaboration among philanthropy, state government, federal programs, private lenders, nonprofit organizations, and school leaders. No single entity carries the entire burden. Instead, each partner contributes resources, expertise, and financing tools that reduce risk and improve access to capital. (For a deeper look at this model, see Building for Success in Idaho.)
One lesson from the charter school experience is that facility financing should be viewed as an ecosystem rather than a one-time transaction. Too often, conversations about school construction focus primarily on securing bond approval or finding a lender. Idaho’s public charter model recognizes that successful projects require support at multiple stages. Schools receive assistance with feasibility studies, property due diligence, architectural planning, budgeting, and financial modeling long before construction begins. By investing in thorough planning upfront, schools significantly reduce the likelihood of costly mistakes later in the process.
This collaborative approach differs from the often siloed way facility financing occurs in many school districts. District leaders frequently rely on a limited set of financing tools and partners. By broadening the circle to include community foundations, local businesses, philanthropic organizations, and state agencies, districts may discover new opportunities to lower costs and increase flexibility.
Another lesson involves risk management. Idaho’s charter school financing model emphasizes rigorous underwriting and accountability at every stage. Schools must demonstrate strong leadership, sound financial planning, and quality academic programming before gaining access to financing tools. That discipline has contributed to an impressive record of success, with no reported defaults among participating schools.
In many ways, Idaho school districts—particularly larger districts—are now facing the same market pressures that charter schools have long confronted. Capital projects require substantial financial commitments, and enrollment uncertainty can affect long-term sustainability. Charter schools receive state and federal funding only if students enroll and remain enrolled. Applying more rigorous project evaluation, clearer performance metrics, and stronger accountability measures could help districts protect taxpayer investments and ensure that projects remain aligned with long-term educational goals.
Perhaps the most compelling lesson is the importance of lowering financing costs. Idaho’s charter school facility ecosystem combines low-interest revolving loan funds, grant support, and state-backed credit enhancements to reduce borrowing costs substantially. The resulting savings allow schools to direct more resources toward students and educational programs rather than debt service.
School district leaders and state policymakers should explore whether similar credit-enhancement programs or revolving loan structures could help traditional public schools access more affordable capital. At a time when construction costs continue to rise, reducing financing expenses may be one of the most effective ways to maximize taxpayer dollars.
Ultimately, Idaho’s experience demonstrates that facility financing is not merely a financial issue—it is an educational issue. Every dollar spent on unnecessary interest payments is a dollar unavailable for teachers, curriculum, technology, student support services, or extracurricular opportunities. By treating facility financing as a strategic component of educational success rather than a back-office function, school leaders can strengthen both their facilities and their academic programs.
The debate between public charter schools and traditional public schools often emphasizes differences. Yet when it comes to facility financing, Idaho offers an example of how innovation in one sector can provide lessons for the entire education system. School districts need not replicate the charter model exactly. But they would be wise to study the principles behind it: comprehensive planning, cross-sector partnerships, disciplined risk management, and a relentless focus on reducing costs. In an era of fiscal constraints and growing facility needs, those lessons may prove valuable for all Idaho schools.
Written by Terry Ryan, CEO BLUUM, Keith Donahue, Director of School Strategy and Operations BLUUM and Marc Carignan, Chief Financial Officer BLUUM.
