Measuring Up

 



Minnesota

TOTAL SCORE:
171 out of 240

Rank: 3 out of 44

Year Charter School Law Was Enacted: 1991
Estimated Number of Charter Schools in 2016-17: 167
Estimated Number of Charter School Students in 2016-17: 53,400

Minnesota’s law does not cap charter public school growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. However, it also provides inequitable funding to charter schools.

The biggest areas for improvement in Minnesota’s law are ensuring equitable operational and categorical funding, equitable access to capital funding and facilities,and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools.

Do Minnesota's laws align to the model law?

Model Law Component

Matches

Minnesota's Charter Law

Score

1. No Caps

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law does not place any caps on charter school growth.

12

1A. No numeric or geographic limits are placed on the number of charter schools or students.

1B. If caps exist, there is room for growth.

N/A

2. A Variety of Charter Public Schools Allowed

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law allows new start-ups and public school conversions.

8

2A. New startups.

2B. Public school conversions.

3. Multiple Authorizers Available

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law allows the following types of entities to serve as authorizers: local school boards, intermediate school boards, cooperatives, charitable nonprofit organizations that meet certain criteria, private colleges, public postsecondary institutions, and single-purpose authorizers that are charitable, non-sectarian entities or limited liability corporations created just to authorize charter schools. There is considerable authorizing activity by these entities.

12

3A. The state allows two or more authorizing options (e.g., school districts and a state charter schools commission) for each applicant with direct application to each authorizer.

4. Authorizer & Overall Program Accountability System Required

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law details a comprehensive authorizer approval and review process. It requires all potential authorizers to submit an application to the state commissioner of education, detailing the applicant’s ability to implement the procedures and satisfy the criteria for chartering a school and including information on the authorizer’s capacity and infrastructure, application criteria and process, contracting process, on-going oversight and evaluation processes, and renewal criteria and processes.

Minnesota law requires authorizers to annually submit a statement of income and expenditures related to authorizing activities to the state commissioner and its charter schools. It also requires the state commissioner to establish specifications for an authorizer’s annual public report that is part of the system to evaluate authorizer performance and requires the report to at least include key indicators of school academic, operational, and financial performance.

Following approval by the state commissioner to be an authorizer, Minnesota law requires each potential authorizer to submit an affidavit for approval by the commissioner for each individual school an authorizer seeks to charter. It requires each affidavit to contain details regarding the proposed school’s operations and student performance expectations, as well as the process the authorizer will use to provide ongoing oversight and to make decisions regarding the renewal or termination of the school’s charter.

Minnesota law requires the state commissioner to review each authorizer’s performance at least every five years and allows the state commissioner to subject the authorizer to corrective actions as needed, including the termination of contracts with schools it has authorized. As part of that review, the law requires the state department of education to comment on each authorizer’s evaluation process for providing formal written evaluation of their school’s performance before renewal of a charter contract.

9

4A. Registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in authorizing.

4B. Application process for other eligible authorizing entities (except a state charter schools commission).

4C. Authorizer submission of annual report.

4D. The ability for the state to conduct a review of an authorizer’s performance.

4E. The ability for the state to sanction an authorizer for poor performance, including suspending an authorizer’s authority to approve new schools.

4F. Periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

5. Adequate Authorizer Funding

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law allows authorizers to charge a fee. It provides that the fee that an authorizer may annually assess is the greater of: the basic formula allowance for that year; or the lesser of: the maximum fee factor times the basic formula allowance for that year; or the fee factor times the basic formula allowance for that year times the charter school's adjusted pupil units for that year. The fee factor equals .015. The maximum fee factor equals 4.0.

For the preoperational planning period, after a school is chartered, the law allows an authorizer to assess a charter school a fee equal to the basic formula allowance.

Minnesota law requires authorizers to annually submit a statement of income and expenditures related to authorizing activities to the state commissioner and its charter schools.

Statute states that the granting or renewal of a charter by an authorizer cannot be contingent on the school being required to contract, lease, or purchase services from the authorizer. It also provides that any potential contract, lease, or purchase of service by a charter school from an authorizer must be disclosed to the state commissioner, accepted through an open bidding process, and be a separate contract from the charter contract. There are also further requirements in law if the contract is for management or financial services.

8

5A. A uniform statewide formula that guarantees annual authorizer funding that is not subject to annual legislative appropriations.

5B. Requirement to publicly report detailed authorizer expenditures.

5C. Separate contract for any services purchased from an authorizer by a school.

5D. Prohibition on authorizers requiring schools to purchase services from them.

6. Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

The law contains application elements for all schools and specific additional requirements for conversion schools.

The state’s authorizer approval process requires authorizers to demonstrate how they will evaluate any educational service provider arrangements proposed within a school’s application.

Within their affidavit sent to the state commissioner for each proposed charter school, Minnesota law requires authorizers to detail information related to the application and review process that the authorizer will use to make decisions regarding the granting of charters as well as their application requirements covering elements listed in statute and an evaluation plan for the proposed schools including criteria for evaluating educational, organization, and fiscal plans.

Following approval by the state commissioner to be an authorizer, Minnesota law requires each potential authorizer to submit an affidavit for approval by the commissioner for each individual school an authorizer seeks to charter. It requires each affidavit to contain details regarding the proposed school’s operations and student performance expectations, as well as the process the authorizer will use to provide ongoing oversight and to make decisions regarding the renewal or termination of the school’s charter.

Statute requires that traditional school district authorizers must act on chartering decisions at public meetings. It does not require other authorizers to do so. It does require all authorizers to state reasons for denials in writing.

12

6A. Application elements for all schools.

6B. Additional application elements specific to conversion schools.

6C. Additional application elements specific to using educational service providers.

6D. Additional application elements specific to replications.

6E. Requirement for thorough evaluation of each application, including an in-person interview and a public meeting.

6F. Application approval criteria.

6G. All charter approval or denial decisions made in a public meeting with authorizers stating reasons for denials in writing.

7. Performance-Based Charter Contracts Required

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

Per statute, a written contract is required as signed by the authorizer and the charter school’s board of directors with details including a declaration that the charter school will carry out the primary purpose for charter schools in state law and how the school will report its implementation of the primary purpose, a declaration of the additional purpose or purposes for charter schools in state law that the school intends to carry out and how the school will report its implementation of those purposes, the operations of the school, specific outcomes students are to achieve, the criteria, processes, and procedures that the authorizer will use to monitor and evaluate the fiscal, operational, and academic performance consistent with state law, for contract renewal the formal written performance evaluation of the school that is a prerequisite for reviewing a charter contract under state law, the specific conditions for contract renewal that identify performance of all students under the primary purpose for charter schools in state law as the most important factor in determining contract renewal, the additional purposes for charter schools in state law related to performance obligations contained in the charter contract as additional factors in determining contract renewal, and the plan for the orderly closing of a school, if a charter is terminated.

Minnesota law provides that the initial contract may be for up to five years.

12

7A. With such contracts being created as a separate document from the application and executed by the governing board of the charter school and the authorizer.

7B. With such contracts defining the roles, powers, and responsibilities for the school and its authorizer.

7C. With such contracts defining academic, financial, and operational performance expectations by which the school will be judged based on a performance framework.

7D. With such contracts providing an initial term of five operating years.

8. Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

Statute requires charter schools to publish a fairly detailed annual report covering enrollment, student attrition, governance, staffing, finances, academic performance, innovative practices, and future plans. It requires this report to be distributed to its authorizer, school employees, and parents as well as posted on the schools’ websites.

Minnesota law also provides that charter schools are subject to the same financial audit procedures and requirements as all districts, with annual audit results submitted to the state commissioner and their authorizer.

Minnesota law requires authorizers to detail for state commissioner approval their process for ongoing oversight of the school consistent with the contract expectations, which must include the criteria, processes, and procedures that the authorizer will use for ongoing oversight of operational, financial, and academic performance.

Statute details causes and processes for nonrenewal or termination, but does not specifically require authorizers to notify their schools of concerns until renewal time nor does it give them the ability to impose corrective actions short of revocation. However, the law has been interpreted to allow authorizers to ask for corrective actions short of revocation. In addition, the law gives the state commissioner the authority to reduce state aid if a school fails to correct a violation of law.

12

8A. Required annual school performance reports.

8B. Financial accountability for charter schools (e.g., generally accepted accounting principles, independent annual audit reported to authorizer).

8C. Authorizer authority to conduct oversight activities.

8D. Authorizer notification to its schools of perceived problems, with opportunities to remedy such problems.

8E. Authorizer authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

8F. Authorizer may not request duplicative data submission from its charter schools and may not use performance framework to create cumbersome reporting requirements.

9. Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

Minnesota law requires authorizers to provide a formal written evaluation of each school’s performance before renewal of its contract.

Statute does not require a formal renewal application, but instead requires authorizers to detail for state commissioner approval their process for making decisions regarding the renewal or termination of a school’s charter based on evidence that demonstrate the academic, organizational, and financial competency of the school, including its success in increasing student achievement and meeting the goals of the charter school agreement. It also requires such items to be detailed in the actual charter school contract, including the performance evaluation that is a prerequisite for renewing a charter contract. The law does not require authorizers to provide an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

Minnesota law provides that charter renewals may be made for up to five years.

Minnesota law requires the authorizer to provide timely notification of potential revocation to the school’s board of directors in writing, including the grounds for the proposed action. It allows the school to request an informal hearing.

Statute requires that traditional school district authorizers must act on chartering decisions at public meetings. It does not require other authorizers to do so.

Minnesota law requires each charter contract to have detailed provisions regarding what would happen if the school closed, including student notification and transfer and financial issues. There are also specific provisions in statute regarding the transfer of records and the disposition of property and assets.

According to the law, if an authorizer and a charter school board of directors mutually agree not to renew a contract, or if the governing board of an approved authorizer votes to withdraw as an approved authorizer, a change in authorizers is allowed. The state commissioner of education must approve such transfers.

12

9A. Authorizer must issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

9B. Schools seeking renewal must apply for it.

9C. Authorizers must issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

9D. Ability to have a differentiated process for renewal of high-performing charter schools.

9E. Authorizers must use clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal/revocation.

9F. Authorizers must ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract.

9G. Requirement that authorizers close chronically low-performing charter schools unless exceptional circumstances exist.

9H. Authorizers must have the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

9I. Authorizers must provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or nonrenewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond.

9J. Authorizers must provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, submission of evidence).

9K. All charter renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions must be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for nonrenewals and revocations in writing.

9L. Authorizers must have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

9M. Any transfer of charter contracts from one authorizer to another are only allowed if they are approved by the state.

10. Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers (ESPs) Allowed

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law specifies that charter schools may contract with outside entities to manage all or some aspects of the school.

The state department authorizer application and approval process requires all authorizers to have evaluation criteria for any educational service provider arrangements, but it does not specify the specific criteria.

The law requires the charter contract to include the terms of the school operations, including any educational service provider arrangements.

Minnesota law requires charter schools’ annual audits to include a copy of all charter school agreements for corporate management services and include detail the terms of the agreement, including the services provided and the annual costs for those services.

The law prohibits an individual from serving as a member of the charter school board of directors if the individual, an immediate family member, or the individual's partner is a full or part owner or a principal with a for-profit or nonprofit entity or independent contractor with whom the charter school contracts, directly or indirectly, for professional services, goods, or facilities. The law prohibits an individual from serving as a board member if an immediate family member is an employee of the school. The law provides that a violation of this prohibition renders a contract voidable at the option of the commissioner or the charter school board of directors and that a member of a charter school board of directors who violates this prohibition is individually liable to the charter school for any damage caused by the violation. The law prohibits authorizers from serving on the boards of their schools.

The law provides that contractors providing facilities, goods, or services to a charter school cannot serve on the board of directors of the charter school.

According to the law, all teachers employed or contracted to work within charter schools must be certified, with background checks being a required aspect of that.

6

10A. All types of educational service providers (both for-profit and nonprofit) are allowed to operate all or parts of schools.

10B. The charter application requires (1) performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, and (2) explanation and evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

10C. A performance contract is required between the independent charter school board and the ESP, with such contract approved by the school’s authorizer.

10D. School governing boards operate as entities completely independent of any ESP, individuals compensated by an ESP are prohibited from serving as voting members on such boards, and existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities are required to be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

10E. Provides that charter school governing boards must have access to ESP records necessary to oversee the ESP contract.

10F. An ESP must annually provide information to its charter school governing board on how that ESP spends public funding it receives when the ESP is performing a public function under applicable state law.

10G. Requires that similar criminal history record checks and fingerprinting requirements applicable to other public schools shall also be mandatory for on-site employees of ESPs who regularly come into contact with students.

11. Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter Public School Boards

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law provides that charter schools are fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent school boards and their own LEAs. Statute includes conflict of interest provisions regarding employees, agents, and board members of authorizers serving on any charter school’s board of directors.

12

11A. Fiscally autonomous schools (e.g., schools have clear statutory authority to receive and disburse funds; incur debt; and pledge, assign, or encumber assets as collateral).

11B. Legally autonomous schools (e.g., schools have clear statutory authority to enter into contracts and leases, sue and be sued in their own names, and acquire real property).

11C. Independent school governing boards created specifically to govern their charter schools.

12. Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law requires charter schools to be open to all in the state.

Minnesota law requires a random selection lottery process to be used if interest exceeds capacity. According to the law, a charter school may not limit admission to pupils on the basis of intellectual ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, or athletic ability and may not establish any criteria or requirements for admission that are inconsistent with state law.

Minnesota law provides that enrollment preferences must be given to siblings of enrolled pupils and any foster children of enrolled pupil’s parents. While the law does not explicitly provide enrollment preferences for previously enrolled students within conversions and prior year students within chartered schools, once a student is enrolled in a school in Minnesota, the law provides that they are enrolled as students until they are withdrawn.

Minnesota law allows charter schools to give preference for children of the school’s staff, but not for board members (unless they are a parent of a student already enrolled in the school). It also does not provide a maximum percentage of the school’s total student population for these students.

The law allows a charter school to give an enrollment preference to children currently enrolled in the school’s free preschool or prekindergarten program who are eligible to enroll in kindergarten in the next school year. It also requires that a charter school located in Duluth Township of St. Louis County give an enrollment preference to students residing within a five-mile radius of the school and to the siblings of enrolled children.

8

12A. Open enrollment to any student in the state.

12B. Anti-discrimination provisions regarding admissions.

12C. Required enrollment preferences for previously enrolled students within conversions and for prior-year students within charter schools.

12D. Lottery requirements.

13. Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law provides that charter schools are exempt from all statutes and rules applicable to district public schools or districts unless a statute or rule is made specifically applicable to a charter school or is included in the charter school law.

Minnesota law does not exempt charter schools from state teaching license requirements.

6

13A. Exemptions from all laws, except those covering health, safety, civil rights, student accountability, employee criminal history checks, open meetings, freedom of information, and generally accepted accounting principles.

13B. Exemption from state teacher certification requirements.

14. Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law provides that a charter school’s teachers are at will employees and may organize for collective bargaining similar to teachers in other districts. It also provides that a bargaining unit at a school authorized by a traditional school district must negotiate as a separate unit with the charter school governing body or remain part of the school district unit if certain conditions and approvals are agreed upon.

6

14A. Charter schools authorized by nonlocal board authorizers are exempt from participation in any district collective bargaining agreements.

14B. Charter schools authorized by local boards are exempt from participation in any district collective bargaining agreements.

15. Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law allows authorizers to permit a school that meets certain criteria to expand operation to additional school sites as approved by the state commissioner following the submission of a supplemental affidavit. These additional sites however, are considered additional campuses of a given school, not separate schools.

The state department of education allows each individual campus to receive separate federal charter start-up funds and requires that the contract between the authorizer and the charter school include specific fiscal and academic accountability measures for each campus. While under one charter, each campus that is self-identified as being distinct by the charter school receives its own site number from the state department of education and receives a separate rating under the state's accountability system.

The law provides that each charter school must have its own charter board, with such board only allowed to hold one charter contract.

8

15A. An independent charter school board may oversee multiple schools linked under a single contract with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

15B. An independent charter school board may hold multiple charter contracts with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

16. Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access

weight = 1 | Possible total = 4

Minnesota law allows charter school students in schools not providing extra-curricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at noncharter public schools for a fee by a mutual agreement.

3

16A. Laws or regulations explicitly state that charter school students and employees are eligible to participate in all extracurricular and interscholastic activities available to noncharter public school students and employees.

16B. Laws or regulations explicitly allow charter school students in schools not providing extracurricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at noncharter public schools.

17. Clear Provisions Regarding Special Education Responsibilities

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law provides that charter schools are the LEAs for special education services and any such funds flow directly to them. In addition, it provides that charter schools may bill a student's resident school district for any additional funds needed to cover excess costs over and above the state and federal funds allocated for that student. Minnesota law provides that charter schools with at least 90% special education students are eligible for accelerated regular special education aid payments. The law also provides that schools have to pay 10% of the excess cost that’s billed back to districts.

6

17A. Clarity regarding which entity is the local education agency (LEA) responsible for providing special education services.

17B. Clarity regarding the flow of federal, state, and local special education funds to the designated LEA.

17C. Clarity regarding funding for low-incident, high-cost services for charter schools (in the same amount and/or in a manner similar to other LEAs).

17D. Clarity that charter schools have access to all regional and state services and supports available to traditional districts.

18. Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

Minnesota law provides that a charter school earns general education revenue on a per pupil unit basis just as though it were a school district. Charter schools in rural areas also qualify for transportation sparsity aid as if they were school districts. If a charter school chooses to have the district in which it is physically located provide transportation services, then 4.66% of the per pupil basic formula allowance plus the transportation sparsity aid for each charter school student is transferred to the providing district for transportation expenses.

The law provides that charter schools as LEAs have equal access to all applicable categorical funding.

Minnesota law's funding formula provides dollars for transportation to charter schools and gives charter schools the option of providing transportation and keeping the transportation funds or requesting the traditional district to provide transportation and then paying those funds to that district in which the school is physically located.

In a national study of charter school funding (University of Arkansas, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, 2014), Minnesota charter schools were receiving on average $10,937 per pupil in public funds, while district public schools would have received $13,918 for those students. As a result, the state's charter schools were receiving $2,981 per pupil - or 21.4% - less than what the district public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and the analysis reveals some continued inequities for both operational and capital funding (see component #19 for information on capital issues).

4

18A. Equitable operational funding statutorily driven.

18B. Equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds.

18C. Funding for transportation similar to school districts.

18D. Annual report offering district and charter public school funding comparisons and including annual recommendations to the legislature for any needed equity enhancements.

19. Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

Minnesota law prohibits charter schools from using any state funds to purchase land or buildings, although charter schools may do so with non-state funds. It allows charter schools to lease space from a public or private owner or from a private nonprofit, nonsectarian, nonprofit, and with approval of the state department of education from other sectarian organizations. It is illegal for authorizers to lease space to their authorized schools.

Minnesota law provides lease aid to charter schools in the amount of 90% of lease costs, up to $1,314 per-pupil.

Minnesota law provides that beginning in Fiscal Year 2017, charter schools will be getting long-term facilities maintenance revenue like all school districts, except that charter schools will have the freedom to use the revenue for any purpose of the school.

Minnesota law specifies that charter schools that own their own facilities may not receive lease aid. However, it allows charter schools that meet certain requirements (e.g., have net unreserved general fund balances) to, with state commissioner approval, create an affiliated nonprofit building corporation, which may renovate or purchase an existing facility or expand an existing building or construct a new school facility. The law allows such nonprofit building corporations to secure financing through various sources available to other nonprofits (e.g., municipal bonds, mortgages), and allows charter schools to use their lease aid for facilities owned by nonprofit building corporations.

8


Facilities Funding

19A. A per-pupil facilities allowance that annually reflects actual average district capital costs.

19B. A state grant program for charter school facilities.

19C. Equal access to existing state facilities programs available to noncharter public schools.


Access to Public Space

19D. A requirement for districts to provide school district space or funding to charter schools if the majority of that school’s students reside in that district.

19E. Right of first refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property.


Access to Financing Tools

19F. A state loan program for charter school facilities.

19G. Equal access to tax-exempt bonding authorities or allowing charter schools to have their own bonding authority.

19H. Pledging the moral obligation of the state to help charter schools obtain more favorable bond financing terms.

19I. The creation and funding of a state charter school debt reserve fund.

19J. The inclusion of charter schools in school district bonding and mill levy requests.

19K. A mechanism to provide credit enhancement for charter school facilities.


Other

19L. Charter schools allowed to contract at or below fair market value with a school district, a college or university, or any other public or for-profit or nonprofit private entity for the use of facility for a school building.

19M. Certain entities allowed to provide space to charter schools within their facilities under their preexisting zoning and land use designations.

19N. Charter school facilities exempt from ad valorem taxes and other assessment fees not applicable to other public schools.

20. Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Minnesota law provides that the employees of charter schools are considered public employees for retirement purposes and the schools and employees must contribute to the appropriate retirement system.

4

20A. Charter schools have access to relevant state retirement systems available to other public schools.

20B. Charter schools have the option to participate (i.e., not required).

21. Full-Time Virtual Charter School Provisions (if such schools allowed by state)

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Minnesota law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions regarding full-time virtual charter schools.

For a student enrolled in an online learning course, the law provides that the state department of education must calculate average daily membership and that no online learning average daily membership shall be generated if the student does not complete the online learning course.

Minnesota law also requires that a charter school offering online courses or programs must comply with some additional statuary requirements including approval of their on-line learning programs by the state department of education initially and then every three years. The online learning provider must give the commissioner written assurance that: (1) all courses meet state academic standards; and (2) the online learning curriculum, instruction, and assessment, expectations for actual teacher-contact time or other student-to-teacher communication, and academic support meet nationally recognized professional standards and are described as such in an online learning course syllabus that meets the commissioner's requirements.

3

21A. An authorizing structure whereby full-time virtual charter schools that serve students from more than one district may be approved only by an authorizer with statewide chartering jurisdiction and authority, full-time virtual charter schools that serve students from one school district may be authorized by that school district, and a cap is placed on the total amount of funding that an authorizer may withhold from a full-time virtual charter school.

21B. Legally permissible criteria and processes for enrollment based on the existence of supports needed for student success.

21C. Enrollment level provisions that establish maximum enrollment levels for each year of a charter contract, with any increases in enrollment from one year to the next based on whether the school meets its performance requirements.

21D. Accountability provisions that include virtual-specific goals regarding student enrollment, attendance, engagement, achievement, truancy, and attrition.

21E. Funding levels per student based on costs proposed and justified by the operators.

21F. Performance-based funding whereby full-time virtual charter schools are funded via a performance-based funding system based on meeting the accountability performance provisions.