Measuring Up



weight: 3 | possible total: 12

4. Authorizer & Overall Program Accountability System Required

4A. At least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state. 4B. Application process for other eligible authorizing entities. 4C. Authorizer submission of annual report, which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio. 4D. A regular review process by authorizer oversight body. 4E. Authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools. 4F. Periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

How well do states’ laws align to this component of the model law?

State

Charter Law Description

Score

Alaska

Alaska law includes none of the elements of the model law’s authorizer and overall program accountability system.

0

Arizona

Arizona law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability.

Arizona law requires the ASBCS, as a state agency, to annually submit a report of its authorizing activities, including things like the number of applications reviewed and approved, number of site visits conducted, number of audits reviewed, number of corrective action plans required, and number of charters revoked. However, Arizona law does not require that all authorizers submit an annual report of their work.

Arizona law does not provide for a formal review process by an authorizer oversight body. Instead, it requires the ASBCS to oversee the schools it approves as well as recommend any needed charter school legislation. Members of the ASBCS include the elected state superintendent of public instruction or designee, 10 members appointed by the governor, and three elected legislators who serve as advisory members. This group must annually report to the legislature for funding its operations, and agency goals and accountability systems for charter schools must be included in that report. Additionally, the Arizona law creating the ASBCS is scheduled to sunset every 10 years unless continued.

Arizona law provides that the state board of education has some oversight over local school board authorizers whereby they can remove the ability of any local school board authorizer to approve additional schools (and can transfer the sponsorship of any existing schools) if it finds a local school board authorizer is out of compliance with the uniform system of financial records.

The law does not require a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not include an application process for a university, a community college district, or a group of community college districts to become an authorizer, and it does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Arkansas

Arkansas law requires the state department of education to conduct an annual evaluation of all open-enrollment charter schools, with core elements detailed including student scores, attendance, grades, discipline incidents, socioeconomic data, parent and student satisfaction, and compliance with reporting requirements.

Arkansas law requires the authorizer to report on the status of the open-enrollment public charter school programs to the General Assembly each biennium and to the House Interim Committee on Education and the Senate Interim Committee on Education during the interim between regular sessions of the General Assembly.

However, it does not require the above evaluation and report to summarize the agency’s authorizing activities.

The ability of the state department of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and the governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

9

California

California law includes a small number of the model law's provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the California legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

However, the law does not include at least a registration process for local school boards and county school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require authorizers to submit an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by an authorizer oversight body for the local school boards and county school boards, does not give an authorizer oversight body the authority to sanction local school board and county school board authorizers, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Colorado

Colorado law does not require local school boards to register or otherwise affirm their interest in authorizing to the state. However, it requires local school boards in districts with more than 3,000 pupils to apply to the state for exclusive chartering authority within the geographic boundaries of their district.

Colorado law does not provide for a regular review of authorizer performance by the state, but the legislature and governor can review the performance of the state charter institute as an authorizer at any time.

The law provides the state board with limited authority to sanction local school board authorizers through the power to grant (where not statutorily granted) or deny exclusive chartering authority and to revoke such authority if warranted. This sanctioning authority applies only to local school boards that seek, or seek to maintain, exclusive authority. Only the legislature may remove the chartering authority of the state charter institute.

Colorado law requires each authorizer to report annually to the state department of education information that the state requires for public school performance reporting. The law does not require authorizers to report annually on their authorizing activities.

Colorado law requires the state department of education to prepare a report and evaluation every three years for the governor and the state House and Senate education committees on the success or failure of Colorado’s charter schools, their relationship to other school reform efforts, and suggested changes in state law to strengthen the charter school program. It requires the state board to compile charter school evaluations from local district authorizers and the state charter institute. In preparing its evaluation of charter schools statewide, the law requires the state board to compare the performance of charter school students with the performance of ethnically and economically comparable groups of students in other public schools who are enrolled in academically comparable courses.

6

Connecticut

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

Connecticut law requires the state commissioner of education to biannually review and report on the operation of charter schools to the joint standing education committee of the general assembly regarding statutory change recommendations to facilitate expansion in the number of charter schools, a compilation of charter school profiles, an assessment of the adequacy of funding, and adequacy and availability of suitable facilities for charter schools.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

Delaware

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state department of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state department of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

Delaware law requires the state department of education to prepare a report for the governor and the general assembly on the success or failure of charter schools and propose changes in state law necessary to improve or change the charter school program. It requires such report to contain a section comparing the per student expenditures of charter schools, considering all sources of such expenditures, with those of other public schools. It also requires the report to contain the secretary of education’s analysis of, recommendations relating to, and proposed changes relating to Delaware education laws in light of the content of annual reports submitted by charter schools and the secretary’s assessment of specific opportunities and barriers relating to the implementation of charter schools’ innovations in the broader Delaware public education school system.

It does not contain at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require authorizers to submit an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process of local school board authorizers by an authorizer oversight body, and does not create an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

District of Columbia

DC has only one active authorizer, the DC Public Charter School Board, whose authority is established in the charter school law.

The law requires the authorizer to submit an annual report to the Mayor, the DC Council, the DC Board of Education, the U.S. Secretary of Education, the appropriate congressional committees, and the Consensus Commission. It requires the report to include data on the performance and compliance of the authorizer’s charter schools, as well as describe authorizing activities and actions in the past year.

The law requires the authorizer to be evaluated biennially by the Comptroller General of the United States (through the Government Accountability Office) for quality procedures, oversight, and best practices.

The ability of the DC Public Charter School Board to continue authorizing can be removed by Congress (the entity that gave them that authority).

12

Florida

State law requires each authorizer to submit an annual report to the state department of education that includes the following information: the number of draft applications received on or before May 1 and each applicant's contact information; the number of final applications received on or before August 1 and each applicant's contact information; the date each application was approved, denied, or withdrawn; and, the date each final contract was executed. It does not require the report to summarize the performance of each authorizer’s school portfolio.

Florida law requires the state department of education to annually provide to the State Board of Education, the Commissioner of Education, the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives an analysis and comparison of the overall performance of charter school students, to include all students whose scores are counted as part of the statewide assessment program, versus comparable public school students in the district as determined by the statewide assessment program currently administered in the school district, and other assessments administered pursuant to state law.

It does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, an application process for other eligible authorizing entities, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3

Georgia

Georgia law requires the state charter school commission to submit an annual report to the state board of education regarding the academic performance and fiscal responsibility of all state charter schools. No similar report is required for local school board authorizers or the state board of education.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education and the state charter school commission as authorizers, they can do so at any time. In addition, the legislature and governor can remove the ability of the state board of education and the state charter school commission to continue authorizing (the entities that gave them that authority).

Georgia law requires the state board of education to submit an annual report to the General Assembly on the status of the charter school program.

6

Hawaii

Hawaii law includes each element of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

The law requires the state board of education to provide oversight for all authorizers in the state, with such authorizers (except the state public charter school commission) needing to submit an application to become an authorizer (and if approved receiving an initial six-year authorizing contract). All authorizers must submit annual reports to the state board of education, which in turn must review and determine if the provisions of the authorizing contract are being met. In evaluating the performance of authorizers, the state board of education must apply nationally recognized principles and standards for quality authorizing. Statute provides for a process of non-renewal or revocation of the authorizing contract as needed.

The state board of education must submit an annual report on the overall charter school program to the governor, the legislature, and the public.

12

Idaho

Idaho law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state charter school commission as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the legislature and governor can remove the ability of state charter school commission to continue authorizing (the entities that gave it that authority).

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require an application process for higher education authorizing entities, does not require authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board and higher education authorizers, does not require an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board and higher education authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Illinois

Every odd-numbered year, the law requires all authorizers to submit a report to the state board of education that includes the authorizer’s strategic vision for chartering and process toward achieving that vision, the academic and financial performance of all operating charter schools, the status of the authorizer’s charter school portfolio, and the authorizing functions provided to the charter schools including operating costs and expenses as detailed in annual audited financial statements.

Every even-numbered year (not every year), the state board of education must issue a report to the General Assembly and the Governor containing the aggregate findings from the authorizer reports, information comparing charter school performance with that of traditional schools similarly situated, a review of the regulations and policies from which charter schools are exempted, and suggestions.

Based on this information and their on-going monitoring of both schools and authorizers, the state board of education has the power to remove the power to authorize from any authorizer in the state and, as needed, revoke the chronically low-performing charter schools approved by that authorizer.

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state.

9

Indiana

The law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the state department of education that contains the following information: results of all standardized testing, end of course assessments, and any other assessments used for each authorized school, student growth and improvement data for each authorized school, attendance rates for each authorized school, graduation rates if appropriate, including attainment of Core 40 and academic honors diplomas for each authorized school, and student enrollment data for each authorized school including the number of students enrolled and the number of students expelled, schools that closed or for which the charter was not renewed, and the reasons for the closure or nonrenewal, names of the authorizer’s board member or ultimate decision making body, evidence that the authorizer is in compliance with state law, and a report summarizing the total amount of administrative fees collected by the authorizer and how the fees were expended, if applicable.

The law provides that the state board of education may, after giving at least thirty days notice, require an authorizer to appear at a hearing conducted by the state board if the authorizer has renewed a charter or failed to close a charter school that does not meet the minimum standards in the charter agreement.

The law provides that the state board may, after the hearing, implement one or more of the following actions unless the state board finds sufficient justification for the charter school's performance under the state school accountability system:

• Transfer the authorization of the charter school to another authorizer.
• Order the closure of the charter school at the end of the current school year.
• Order the reduction of any administrative fee collected under state law that is applicable to the charter school.

The law provides that a charter school closed by the state board may not be granted a charter by any other authorizer.

In determining whether to impose consequences, the law requires the state board to consider the following:

• Enrollment of students with special challenges such as drug or alcohol addiction, prior withdrawal from school, prior incarceration, or other special circumstances.
• High mobility of the student population resulting from the specific purpose of the charter school.
• Annual improvement in the performance of students enrolled in the charter school compared with the performance of students enrolled in the charter school in the immediately preceding school year.

According to state law, if the state board has closed or transferred sponsorship of at least twenty-five percent of the charter schools chartered by one authorizer, the authorizer's ability to authorize new charter schools may be suspended by the state board until the state board approves the authorizer to authorize new charter schools. The law provides that a determination to suspend an authorizer’s ability to authorize new charter schools must identify the deficiencies that, if corrected, will result in the approval of the authorizer to authorize new charter schools.

According to the law, if the deficiencies are not corrected within two years after the date the state board suspends the authorizer's authority to authorize new charter schools, the state board, following an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members, may revoke the authorizer's authority to function as an authorizer.

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, an application process for other eligible authorizing entities, and a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

6

Iowa

Iowa law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability. Iowa law requires the state board of education to annually submit a comprehensive report, with findings and recommendations, to the senate and house standing committees on education. However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3

Kansas

Kansas law provides that at the conclusion of each school year in which a charter school is operated in a school district, the local school board must evaluate the impact the charter school has had on the educational system of the district and submit the evaluation to the state board of education. If applicable, the evaluation must include a statement regarding the reasons why a charter school was discontinued or did not seek renewal and whether the program will continue as a non-charter school.

Kansas law requires the state board to review, assess and compile the evaluations of charter schools submitted by local school boards and submit the compilation of evaluations and other relevant material, including specification of school district and state board waivers granted with respect to the operation of each charter school, to the governor and the legislature.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3

Louisiana

The law grants the state board of education the authority to approve and oversee any local charter authorizers, including a process of on-going review, corrective actions as needed, and renewal and/or revocation. This authority does not extend to local school board authorizers.

Louisiana law requires each authorizer to report to the state board of education on the number of schools chartered, the status of those schools, and any recommendations by July first of each year. It does not require that these reports summarize the performance of the authorizer’s school portfolio.

Statute requires the state board of education to publish an annual report that covers all public schools including charters and includes a report on the implementation of a total system of choice.

6

Maine

Maine law requires that local school boards interested in authorizing must issue a request for proposal.

Maine law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the state commissioner of education detailing their strategic vision for chartering and progress toward that vision, the performance of all of their charter schools, the status of their charter school portfolio, the oversight and services that they provide to their charter schools, and the total amount of funds collected from each public charter school the authorizer authorized and the costs incurred by the authorizer to oversee each public charter school.

The law gives the state department of education the right to investigate and, as appropriate, institute sanctions in response to authorizer performance or legal compliance. In addition to any other sanction instituted, the law allows the state commissioner of education to suspend a deficient authorizer’s authority to issue new charters or renew existing charters until the commissioner is satisfied that the deficiencies have been corrected.

Statute requires that the state department of education submit a comprehensive report to the Governor, legislature, and public four and eight years after charter schools have been in operation.

9

Maryland

Maryland law includes none of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

0

Massachusetts

Massachusetts law requires the state commissioner of education to collect data on the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic make-up of the student enrollment of each charter school in the commonwealth and the number of students enrolled in each charter school who have individual education plans and those requiring English language learners programs. It also requires the state commissioner of education to file such data annually with the clerks of the house and senate and with the joint committee on education, arts, and humanities not later than December 1.

The legislature and governor can remove the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing (the entities that gave it that authority).

9

Michigan

While the statute does not require a regular authorizer process by an oversight body, it does provides that if the state superintendent of public instruction finds an authorizer is not engaged in appropriate continuing oversight, then it can suspend the ability of that authorizer to issue future charters.

Michigan law requires the state board of education to submit an annual report to the legislature, offering detailed information on the overall charter school program, as well as individual charter school data.

The statute does not require local school boards to affirm their interest in authorizing to the state, does not require an application process for other eligible authorizing entities, and does not require authorizers to submit an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activity and the performance of its school portfolio.

6

Minnesota

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

Mississippi

Before October 1 of each year, beginning in the year that the state has had at least one charter school operating for a full school year, the law requires the Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board to issue to the Governor, Legislature, State Board of Education, and the public an annual report on the state's charter schools for the preceding school year. The law provides that the report must include a comparison of the performance of charter school students with the performance of academically, ethnically and economically comparable groups of students in the school district in which a charter school is located. In addition, the law provides that the report must include the authorizer's assessment of the successes, challenges, and areas for improvement in meeting the purposes of this act. The law provides that the report also must include an assessment on whether the number and size of operating charter schools are sufficient to meet demand, as calculated according to admissions data and the number of students denied enrollment based on lottery results. The law does not require the report to summarize the agency’s authorizing activities.

The law requires the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review to prepare an annual report assessing the sufficiency of funding for charter schools, the efficacy of the state formula for authorizer funding, and any suggested changes in state law or policy necessary to strengthen the state's charter schools.

The ability of the Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and the governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

9

Missouri

Missouri law requires the state department of education to establish an annual application and approval process for all entities eligible to sponsor charters that are not sponsoring a charter school as of August 28, 2012.

Missouri law requires the application process for sponsorship to require each interested eligible sponsor to submit an application that includes: written notification of intent to serve as a charter school sponsor in accordance with state law; evidence of the applicant sponsor's budget and personnel capacity; an outline of the request for proposal that the applicant sponsor would, if approved as a charter sponsor, issue to solicit charter school applicants consistent with state law; the performance framework that the applicant sponsor would, if approved as a charter sponsor, use to guide the establishment of a charter contract and for ongoing oversight and a description of how it would evaluate the charter schools it sponsors; and the applicant sponsor's renewal, revocation, and nonrenewal processes consistent with state law.

By April first of each year, the law requires the department to decide whether to grant or deny a sponsoring authority to a sponsor applicant. According to the law, this decision shall be made based on the applicant charter's compliance with state law and properly promulgated rules of the department.

Within thirty days of the department's decision, the law requires the department to execute a renewable sponsoring contract with each entity it has approved as a sponsor. According to the law, the term of each authorizing contract shall be six years and renewable.

Missouri law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the Joint Committee on Education, but it does not require the reports to summarize each entity’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio.

Missouri law requires the state board of education to ensure that sponsors are in compliance with their obligations.

The law requires the state board to notify each sponsor of applicable standards.

The law requires that the state board of education ensure that each sponsor is in compliance with its responsibilities. The law requires the state board to evaluate sponsors to determine compliance with the state’s standards for sponsorship every three years. It requires the evaluation to include a sponsor's policies and procedures in the areas of charter application approval, required charter agreement terms and content, sponsor performance evaluation and compliance monitoring, and charter renewal, intervention, and revocation decisions. The law provides that nothing shall preclude the department from undertaking an evaluation at any time for cause.

The law provides that if the department determines that a sponsor is in material noncompliance with its sponsorship duties, the sponsor shall be notified and given reasonable time for remediation. If remediation does not address the compliance issues identified by the department, the law requires the commissioner of education to conduct a public hearing and thereafter provide notice to the charter sponsor of corrective action that will be recommended to the state board of education. According to the law, corrective action by the department may include withholding the sponsor's funding and suspending the sponsor's authority to sponsor a school that it currently sponsors or to sponsor any additional school until the sponsor is reauthorized by the state board of education.

Missouri law allows the charter sponsor to, within thirty days of receipt of the notice of the commissioner's recommendation, provide a written statement and other documentation to show cause as to why that action should not be taken. According to the law, final determination of corrective action shall be determined by the state board of education based upon a review of the documentation submitted to the department and the charter sponsor.

If the state board removes an authorizer's ability to authorize charter schools, the law requires the Missouri Charter Public School Commission to serve as the authorizer of any schools sponsored by the entity losing its ability to authorize charters.

9

Nevada

Nevada law requires local school boards and a college or university within the Nevada System of Higher Education to apply to the state department of education for authorization to authorize charter schools. It requires an entity’s application to be approved by the state department of education before it may authorize a charter school.

Nevada law requires each authorizer to submit an annual report to the state department of education that includes: for each charter school that it authorizes with a written charter, an evaluation of the progress of each such charter school in achieving the educational goals and objectives of the written charter; for each charter school that it authorizes with a charter contract, a summary evaluating the academic, financial and organizational performance of the charter school, as measured by the performance indicators, measures and metrics set forth in the performance framework for the charter school; an identification of each charter school approved by the authorizer which has not opened and the scheduled time for opening, if any, which is open and in operation, which has transferred authorization, whose written charter has been revoked or whose charter contract has been terminated by the authorizer, whose charter contract has not been renewed by the authorizer, and which has voluntarily ceased operation; a description of the strategic vision of the authorizer for the charter schools that it authorizes and the progress of the authorizer in achieving that vision; a description of the services provided by the authorizer pursuant to a service agreement entered into with the governing body of the charter school pursuant to state law, including an itemized accounting of the actual costs of those services; the amount of any money from the Federal Government that was distributed to the charter school, any concerns regarding the equity of such distributions and any recommendations on how to improve access to and distribution of money from the Federal Government.

Nevada law requires the state department of education to conduct a comprehensive review of the authorizers that it has approved at least once every three years.

The law allows the state department of education to determine whether to continue or to revoke the authorization of an entity to authorize charter schools.

Nevada law requires the state superintendent of public instruction to submit a periodic report to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the next regular session of the Legislature that includes: a list of each application to form a charter school that was submitted to the board of trustees of a school district, the State Board, a college or a university during the immediately preceding biennium; the educational focus of each charter school for which an application was submitted; the current status of the application; and, if the application was denied, the reasons for the denial.

9

New Hampshire

To become an authorizer, New Hampshire law requires the local school district to vote to participate and determine what percentage of their students is allowed to participate in charter schools, but it does not require local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

By statute, the state board of education must convene one or more working committees to study and make recommendations regarding the implementation and effectiveness of charter schools, with such recommendations provided to a joint legislative oversight committee. In turn, the joint legislative committee must prepare an annual report regarding any recommended legislative changes.

However, it does not require authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

New Jersey

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

However, it does not require authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio and a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

6

New Mexico

New Mexico law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the state public education department that includes a performance report for each charter school it oversees.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state public education commission as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the legislature and governor can remove the ability of the state public education commission to continue authorizing (the entities that gave it that authority).

New Mexico law requires the state public education department to issue annual reports to the governor, the legislative finance committee, and the legislative education study committee on the state’s charter schools. The law requires the annual report to include a comparison of the performance of charter school students with the performance of academically, ethnically and economically comparable groups of students in noncharter public schools. It also requires the annual report to include an assessment of the successes, challenges, and areas for improvement in meeting the purposes of the Charter Schools Act, including the division's assessment of the sufficiency of funding for charter schools, the efficacy of the state formula for chartering authority funding, and any suggested changes to state law or policy necessary to strengthen the state's charter schools.

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

New York

New York law requires the State Board of Regents to submit an annual report to the governor, senate president, and speaker with the following information: number, distribution, brief description of new charters, assessment of current and projected programmatic and fiscal impact of charters on delivery of services by districts, data on academic progress of charter students compared to other public and non-public school students, list of authorizer actions on renewal and revocation, best practices employed by charter schools, and any other information the Regents deem necessary. It does not require a similar report from the State University of New York and local school board authorizers.

The ability of the State Board of Regents and the State University of New York to continue authorizing can be removed by the New York legislature and governor (the entities that gave them that authority).

The law does not provide for a regular review process by authorizer oversight body for local school district authorizers and does not provide an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school district authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

North Carolina

North Carolina law requires the state board of education to review and evaluate the educational effectiveness of charter schools and the effect of charter schools on the public schools in the local school administrative unit in which the charter schools are located. It requires the state board to report annually no later than January 1 to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee on the following: the current and projected impact of charter schools on the delivery of services by the public schools; student academic progress in the charter schools as measured, where available, against the academic year immediately preceding the first academic year of the charter schools' operation; best practices resulting from charter school operations; and other information the state board considers appropriate. The law does not require the report to summarize the agency’s authorizing activities, though.

The ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the North Carolina legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

9

Ohio

Ohio law requires all eligible authorizers to apply to the state board of education for approval to serve as an authorizer for start-up charter schools except for those already serving as authorizers at the time this provision was enacted.

Ohio law requires the state department of education to adopt criteria and procedures to process authorizer applications. State regulations specify that an interested authorizer must obtain, complete, and submit a written application by the specified deadline. Regulations provide that the application must include evidence of a authorizer's ability and willingness to do the following: authorize a new charter in a challenged district; demonstrate, if it authorizes any schools, that they hold a comparable rating to or better than the performance of Ohio schools rated for continuous performance; possess resources necessary to monitor and provide technical assistance; comply with statute; indicate fees not to exceed 3% of the total amount of payments for operating expenses that a school receives from the state which will be collected; monitor and evaluate school compliance; monitor and evaluate academic and fiscal performance; report on the schools to the state department; provide technical assistance; intervene to correct any performance deficiencies; and have a plan in place for when a school experiences financial difficulties or closes prior to the end of the school year.

Ohio law requires authorizers to issue an annual report of assurances to the state department.

Ohio law requires the state department to monitor the effectiveness of authorizers in their oversight of the schools with which they have contracted. The law requires the state department of education to rate authorizers based upon their performance.

If at any time the state board finds that an authorizer is not in compliance or is no longer willing to comply with its contract with any school or with the department’s rules for authorizing, state law requires the state board or designee to conduct a hearing. If after the hearing, the state board or designee has confirmed the original finding, state law allows the state department to revoke the authorizer’s approval to authorize schools and assume the authorization of any schools with which the authorizer has contracted until the earlier of the expiration of two school years or until a new authorizer is secured by the school’s governing authority. State law allows the state department to extend the term of the contract in the case of a school for which it has assumed authorization under this division as necessary to accommodate the term of the department’s authorization of the school specified in this division.

In lieu of revoking authorizer’s authority to authorize charter schools, if the state department finds that an authorizer is not in compliance with applicable laws and administrative rules, the law requires the department to declare in a written notice to the authorizer the specific laws or rules, or both, for which the authorizer is noncompliant. The law requires an authorizer notified to respond to the state department not later than fourteen days after the notification with a proposed plan to remedy the conditions for which the authorizer was found to be noncompliant. The law requires the state department to approve or disapprove the plan.

If a plan or a revised plan is approved, the law requires the sponsor to implement the plan. If an authorizer does not respond to the state department or implement an approved compliance plan, or if an authorizer does not receive approval of a compliance plan, the law requires the state department to declare in written notice to the authorizer that the authorizer is in probationary status, and may limit the authorizer's ability to authorize additional schools.

The law allows an authorizer that has been placed on probationary status to apply to the state department for its probationary status to be lifted.

By December thirty-first of each year, state law requires the state department to issue a report to the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, and the chairpersons of the house and senate committees principally responsible for education matters regarding the effectiveness of academic programs, operations, and legal compliance and of the financial condition of all charter schools and on the performance of authorizers.

9

Oklahoma

Oklahoma law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

Oklahoma law requires the state board of education to issue an annual report to the legislature and the governor outlining the status of charter schools in the state.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3

Oregon

Oregon law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require an application process for other eligible authorizing entities, does not require authorizer submission of annual report which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board and higher education authorizers, does not require authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board and higher education authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state department of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state department of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require authorizer submission of annual report which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, does not require authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Rhode Island

Rhode Island law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require authorizer submission of annual report which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, does not require authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

South Carolina

South Carolina law requires a public or an independent institution of higher learning that wants to serve as an authorizer to register with the South Carolina Department of Education. It does not require a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state.

South Carolina law requires a charter school to report annually to its authorizer and the authorizer shall compile those reports into a single document that must be submitted to the South Carolina Department of Education and that must include, at a minimum, the following: the number of students enrolled in the charter school from year to year; the success of students in achieving the specific educational goals for which the charter school was established; an analysis of achievement gaps among major groupings of students in both proficiency and growth; the identity and certification status of the teaching staff; the financial performance and sustainability of the authorizer’s charter schools; and board performance and stewardship including compliance with applicable laws. It does not require the report to include information that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the South Carolina Public Charter School District as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the South Carolina Public Charter School District to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

South Carolina law requires the state board of education to compile evaluations to include, but not be limited to, school report cards of charter schools received from authorizers. It requires the state board to review information regarding the regulations and policies from which charter schools were released to determine if the releases assisted or impeded the charter schools in meeting their stated goals and objectives.

The law does not require a regular review process by an authorizer oversight body of local school board and higher education authorizers and does not give an authorizer oversight body the authority to sanction local school board and higher education authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

Tennessee

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the achievement school district as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the achievement school district to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

Tennessee law requires the state commissioner of education to prepare and submit an annual report on charter schools to the joint oversight committee on education based upon the information provided in charter school annual reports.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

Texas

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state commissioner of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state commissioner of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

Texas law requires the state commissioner of education to select a center for education research authorized by state law to prepare an annual report concerning the performance of open-enrollment charter schools by authorizer compared to campus charters and matched traditional campuses. It provides that the format of the report must enable the public to distinguish and compare the performance of each type of public school by classifying the schools as follows: open-enrollment charters granted by the state board of education; open-enrollment charters granted by the commissioner; charters granted by school districts; and matched traditional campuses.

It also requires the report to include the performance of each public school in each class as measured by the student achievement indicators adopted under state law and student attrition rates. It also requires the report to aggregate and compare the performance of open-enrollment charter schools granted charters by the state board, open-enrollment charter schools granted charters by the commissioner, campuses and programs granted charters by school districts, and matched traditional campuses and rate the aggregate performance of elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools within each class as indicated by the composite rating that would be assigned to the class of elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools if the students attending all schools in that class were cumulatively enrolled in one elementary, middle or junior high, or high school.

The law also requires the report to include an analysis of whether the performance of matched traditional campuses would likely improve if there were consolidation of school districts within the county in which the campuses are located.
The law only requires such an analysis for a county that includes at least seven school districts and at least 10 open-enrollment charter schools.

Texas law requires the state commissioner of education to designate an impartial organization with experience in evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. The law requires the evaluation to include consideration of the following items before implementing the charter and after implementing the charter: students' scores on state tests; student attendance; students' grades; incidents involving student discipline; socioeconomic data on students' families; parents' satisfaction with their children's schools; and students' satisfaction with their schools.

The law also requires the evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools to include an evaluation of: the costs of instruction, administration, and transportation incurred by open-enrollment charter schools; the effect of open-enrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts; and other issues, as determined by the commissioner.

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board authorizers, and does not require an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

6

Utah

Utah law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state charter school board as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state charter school board to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require an application process for other eligible authorizing entities, does not require authorizer submission of annual report which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board and higher education authorizers, does not require authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board and higher education authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Virginia

Virginia law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability. Virginia law requires authorizers to submit annual evaluations of any public charter schools to the state board of education. It requires the state board to review the evaluations against any state board regulations and policies waived for the public charter schools to determine the efficacy of such waivers and whether the public charter schools accomplished established goals and objectives.

Virginia law also requires authorizers to submit annually to the state board a comparison of the performance of public charter school students and students enrolled in the regular schools of such relevant school division and a report of the number of students enrolled in such public charter schools at the end of the school year. It requires the state board to report annually its findings and evaluations of any public charter schools established, as well as the number of charters denied, to the governor and the general assembly.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3

Washington

Statute requires local school boards to seek approval from the state board of education prior to becoming an authorizer.

State law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the state board of education that summarizes their authorizing activities as well as the performance of their charter portfolio.

State law makes the state board of education responsible for overseeing the performance and effectiveness of all local school board authorizers via an approval and oversight process detailed in statute. It allows the state board of education to terminate a local school board’s contract to approve schools. The legislature and the governor can remove the ability of the Washington Charter School Commission to continue authorizing (the entities that gave it that authority).

The law requires the state board to submit an annual report that includes details such as the performance of charter schools compared to comparable groups of students in non-charter schools.

12

Wisconsin

Wisconsin law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

While the law does not require the legislature and the governor to regularly review the performance of the city of Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Area Technical College, and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside as authorizers, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the city of Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Area Technical College, and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside to continue authorizing can be removed by the legislature and the governor (the entities that gave them that authority).

The law does not require at least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, does not require authorizer submission of annual report which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, does not require a regular review process by authorizer oversight body of local school board, does not require authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction local school board authorizers including removal of authorizer right to approve schools, and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

3

Wyoming

Wyoming law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability.

Wyoming law requires each district authorizer to report annually to the state board of education on each charter school operating within the district. The law specifies that the report must include achievement data and fiscal reports in the format required by the state, charter compliance information, an annual accreditation report, and a list of any complaints received by or about the charter school and the resolution of those complaints. The law does not require the annual report to summarize the authorizer’s authorizing activities.

However, it does not require at least a registration process for school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state, authorizer submission of an annual report that summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio, a regular review process by authorizer oversight body, and an authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

3