Measuring Up to the Model



weight: 4 | possible total: 16

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

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. Clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal/revocation.

9E. 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).

9F. Authorizer authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

9G. Authorizers must provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond.

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

9I. All charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

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

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

State

Charter Law Description

Score

Alaska

Alaska law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. However, Alaska law does require each charter contract to contain a termination clause providing that the charter contract may be terminated by the local school board for the failure of the school to meet educational achievement goals or fiscal management standards or for other good cause. It also provides that contracts may be for a term of no more than 10 years.

4

Arizona

Per Arizona law, schools must apply for a renewal of their charter at least 15 months before the expiration of its charter. It also allows schools to apply for early renewal at least nine months before the charter school’s intended renewal consideration.

The law requires authorizers to make a renewal application available to schools facing renewal. ASBCS policies include detailed renewal application requirements for schools approved by them, including the ability to offer supplementary performance information and future plans. However, the law does not require authorizers to issue performance reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

Arizona law provides that an authorizer may deny a request for renewal if, in its judgment, the charter holder has failed to do any of the following: meet or make sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the performance framework; meet the operational performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plans; complete the obligations of the contract; or comply with the charter school statutes or any provision of law which the charter school is not exempt. ASBCS regulations note that renewals may be granted to schools based on assessment results, financial audit reports, enrollment reports, and complaint records.

The law allows an authorizer to revoke a charter at any time if the charter school breaches one or more provisions of its charter or if the authorizer determines that the charter holder has failed to do any of the following: meet or make sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the performance framework; meet the operational performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plan; or comply with the charter school statutes or any provision of law which the charter school is not exempt.

Statute requires 20-year renewal intervals, with no ability to vary those terms.

Arizona law requires timely notification of potential non-renewal and revocation, including written reasons, with any such non-renewals and revocations occurring at a public hearing.

Neither statutes nor regulations detail school closure protocols, although revocation orders and surrender agreements issued by the ASBCS include such information for schools supervised by that board.

Overall, many of the pieces within this section have been implemented for schools supervised by ASBCS, but these policies are not required for all authorizers nor are they yet codified in Arizona law or Arizona Administrative Code.

12

Arkansas

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

Arkansas regulations state that each charter school must apply for renewal of its charter using a form and timeline prescribed by the state department of education's charter school office.

Arkansas law and regulations outline a transparent process for review and renewal and provide criteria for non-renewal. In addition, they require each charter school to establish the level of student performance that is considered acceptable for continuation or renewal.

Arkansas law provides that the terms of the renewal may be one year or multi-year, allowing up to five years for conversion charter schools and up to 20 years for open enrollment charter schools.

Arkansas law requires the authorizer to notify via certified mail of alleged violations of the school’s charter contract. As provided by Arkansas law, due process procedures include an opportunity for a hearing to the persons operating the charter school and to the parents of students enrolled in the school.

Arkansas law requires that all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with the state board stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Arkansas law and regulation detail information regarding school non-renewal or revocation issues in relation to disbursement of assets, parent notification, and student and record transitions.

16

California

California law describes generally the evidence basis on which authorizers must make renewal determinations, including “documented and clear and convincing data” and “information submitted by the charter school.” Although not explicit, the requirement of school-submitted information prior to renewal appears equivalent to a renewal application.

The law sets forth grounds for revocation or non-renewal and provides that a charter school must meet at least one of five academic performance criteria established in the law prior to renewal. The law also provides that a charter school that fails to improve outcomes for three or more student subgroups in three out of four consecutive years may receive technical assistance and intervention from its authorizer or a newly established California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. If intervention is unsuccessful, as specified, the charter may be revoked without appeal. The law also states that the authorizer shall consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all pupil subgroups served by the charter school as the most important factor in determining whether to revoke the charter.

The law provides that renewals must be for five-year terms and does not provide authority to authorizers to vary the length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

The law requires an authorizer to notify a charter school of potential revocation and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy identified problems, except in case of severe and imminent threat to student health or safety. It requires a public hearing prior to any revocation decision. In cases of non-renewal or revocation, the law provides for appeals to the county or state board of education for schools chartered by districts or county offices of education. The law also authorizes the state board of education to revoke a locally-granted charter under certain circumstances.

The law requires authorizers to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, or revocation decisions in a public meeting and to state reasons for all such decisions in writing.

California regulations establish a protocol for closing a charter school, and state law requires that a school closure protocol is an element of a charter petition.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

12

Colorado

Colorado law requires charter schools seeking renewal to submit a renewal application. However, it does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

The law requires authorizers to adopt and revise as necessary procedures and timelines for the charter renewal process. It requires authorizers to ensure that each of the charter schools authorized by them receives a copy of these procedures and timelines.

Colorado law states general grounds for non-renewal or revocation, but does not state, or require authorizers to state, clear criteria for renewal.

The law requires authorizers to consider in a renewal application the school’s performance and progress over the charter term.

For district-chartered schools, Colorado law provides that a charter may be renewed for successive periods. It does not define or limit the length of renewal contracts issued by districts. For schools chartered by the state institute, the law provides that charter contracts may be renewed for successive terms of up to five academic years, and a charter school and the institute may agree to extend the length of a renewed contract beyond five years for the purpose of enhancing the terms of any lease or financial obligation.

Colorado law provides that least 15 days prior to the date on which an authorizer will consider whether to revoke or renew a charter, the authorizer must provide to the charter school a written recommendation, including the reasons supporting the recommendation, concerning whether to revoke or renew the charter. It does not require authorizers to
provide charter schools with the opportunity to respond.

The law allows schools to appeal a decision to revoke or non-renew the school to the state board of education.

Colorado law requires authorizers to make charter renewal, non-renewal, or revocation decisions in a public meeting and state reasons for non-renewal or revocation in writing.

Colorado law requires each authorizer to adopt procedures for closing a charter school following revocation or nonrenewal of the charter school’s charter. At a minimum, the law provides that the procedures shall ensure that:

• When practicable and in the best interest of the students of the charter school, the charter school continues to operate through the end of the school year. If the authorizer determines it is necessary to close the charter school prior to the end of the school year, the authorizer shall work with the charter school to determine an earlier closure date.
• The authorizer works with the parents of the students who are enrolled in the charter school when the charter is revoked or not renewed to ensure that the students are enrolled in schools that meet their educational needs; and
• The charter school meets its financial, legal, and reporting obligations during the period that the charter school is concluding operations.

12

Connecticut

Connecticut law requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it. For such renewal applications, the law allows the state board of education to commission an independent appraisal of the charter school’s performance.

Connecticut law provides that the state board of education may deny an application for the renewal of a charter if: student progress has not been sufficiently demonstrated, as determined by the state commissioner of education; the governing council of the school has not been sufficiently responsible for the operation of the school or has misused or spent public funds in a manner that is detrimental to the educational interests of the students attending the charter school; the school has not been in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; or the efforts of the school have been insufficient to effectively attract, enroll and retain students with a history of low academic performance, students who receive free or reduced priced lunches pursuant to federal law and regulations, students with a history of behavioral and social difficulties, students identified as requiring special education, or students who are English language learners.

Connecticut law also provides that the state board of education may revoke a charter if a charter school has failed to: comply with the terms of probation, including the failure to file or implement a corrective action plan; demonstrate satisfactory student progress, as determined by the state commissioner of education; comply with the terms of its charter or applicable laws and regulations; or manage its public funds in a prudent or legal manner.

Connecticut law allows a charter to be renewed for up to five years.

Unless an emergency exists, prior to revoking a charter, Connecticut law requires the state board to provide the governing council for the charter school with written notice of revocation reasons and an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with all requirements for the retention of its charter, including documentary and testimonial evidence to refute the facts cited by the state board for the proposed revocation.

The law requires all actions regarding renewals, nonrenewals, and revocations to be made in a public meeting.

Connecticut law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

12

Delaware

Delaware law requires an authorizer to review the performance of the charter school and determine its satisfactory compliance with the law and its charter four years after a charter school has opened and every five years thereafter.

The law requires the approving authority to issue a charter school renewal report and charter renewal application guidance to any charter school whose charter will expire the following year. It requires the renewal report to summarize the charter school’s performance record to date, based on the data required by law and the charter contract and provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns perceived by the approving authority concerning the charter school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal if not timely rectified. The law provides the charter school with 10 working days to respond to the renewal report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.

The law provides that the renewal process shall, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the charter school to: present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the renewal report, supporting its case for charter renewal describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school; and detail the school’s plans for the next charter term.

The law requires the renewal application guidance to include the criteria that will guide the approving authority’s renewal decisions. It requires the renewal determinations by the state department of education to be based on its performance framework, the terms set forth in the charter contract, and shall take account of the school’s performance agreement with the approving authority. The law allows other approving authorities to choose to adopt the criteria utilized by the department. The law requires each approving authority to develop a rubric based on its criteria for evaluating renewal applications and provide this rubric to applicants as part of the renewal application guidance.

Delaware law requires the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the approving authority pursuant to the renewal application guidance issued by the approving authority.

Delaware regulation provides that state-authorized charters shall be renewed only if the school receives a satisfactory performance review, with the performance reviews conducted by the state department of education using the performance framework approved by the state department with the assent of the state board of education. This provision does not apply to charter schools authorized by local school boards.

Delaware law allows an authorizer to revoke a charter contract if the charter school, or its representatives, commits a material fraud on the approving authority or misappropriates federal, state, or local funds, fails to comply with its charter or fails to satisfy, in its operation of the school, its approval criteria.

The law provides that a charter school may be renewed for successive five-year terms of duration and allows an approving authority to grant renewal with specific conditions for necessary improvements to a charter school. Where a charter school has demonstrated an outstanding record of performance, the law allows an approving authority to grant it a renewal term of ten years. The law provides that any charter school receiving such an extended renewal term shall, at the midpoint of the ten-year charter, be subject to an annual performance and program evaluation that includes academic, financial, and operations data that looks back to all of the years of the charter up to that point. If, upon this evaluation, the approving authority determines that the charter school’s level of performance is deficient by renewal standards, the law allows the approving authority to initiate the formal renewal and non-renewal process.

It requires the authorizer to notify the school of any violations and commence a formal evaluation. Delaware law allows the charter school to comment on the initial report of alleged violations at a minimum of 15 days prior to final review by the authorizer. If grounds exist for further investigation, the law requires the authorizer to hold a public hearing and allow the charter to respond to the alleged violations within the report.

The law requires the authorizer to hold a public hearing to decide the appropriate action regarding the charter. Regulation calls for a written final report in which comments related to actions and concerns are made public.

Prior to any charter school closure decision, the law requires an approving authority to have developed and utilize a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets in accordance with the requirements of the state’s charter school law and other applicable laws. It requires the protocol to specify tasks, timelines, and responsible parties, including delineating the respective duties of the school and the approving authority. In the event of a charter school closure for any reason, the law requires the approving authority to oversee and work with the closing school to ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students and parents, as guided by the closure protocol.

16

District of Columbia

The law requires charter schools seeking renewal to file a renewal application 120-365 days before the expiration of the charter. The law states generally what charter school renewal applications must contain and mandates a renewal application timeframe.

The law sets forth general grounds for non-renewal and revocation, distinguishing between the two. The law directs the authorizer to approve a duly filed renewal application unless the authorizer determines that the school has met one of the stated criteria for non-renewal, in which case the authorizer shall not renew the charter.

The law requires renewed charter terms to be for 15 years, but subjects them to the requirement of a high-stakes review every five years. It does not provide authorizers with the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

The law entitles charter schools to an informal hearing, upon request, for any pending renewal or revocation decision. In the case of a proposed revocation, the law requires the authorizer to provide written notice to the charter school, including an opportunity for the school to request an informal hearing.

The law requires the authorizer to make all renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting and state in writing reasons for non-renewal or revocation. The law makes non-renewal and revocation decisions subject to judicial review.

In the event of a charter closure, the law requires the authorizer to develop, in consultation with a charter school’s governing board, a plan for the orderly disposition of school assets. The law also requires the authorizer to arrange for the transfer and storage of necessary student records.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

12

Florida

Florida law provides that when obligations established in the charter agreement are successfully accomplished (which includes consideration of the school’s performance and financial record over the course of the charter term), authorizers may renew charters.

The law provides that the authorizer shall make student academic achievement for all students the most important factor when determining whether to renew or terminate the charter. It also specifies that non-renewal can result from failure to participate in the state accountability system or failure to meet student performance requirements, inadequate fiscal management, violations of law, or other good cause shown.

The law requires authorizers to terminate a charter if the charter school earns two consecutive grades of "F" unless: the charter school is established to turnaround the performance of a district public school; the charter school serves a student population the majority of which resides in a school zone served by a district public school that earned a grade of "F" in the year before the charter school opened and the charter school earns at least a grade of "D" in its third year of operation (this exception does not apply to a charter school in its fourth year of operation and thereafter); or the state board grants the charter school a waiver of termination if the charter school demonstrates that the learning gains of its students on statewide assessments are comparable to or better than the learning gains of similarly situated students enrolled in nearby district public schools. The waiver is valid for one year and may only be granted once. Charter schools that have been in operation for more than five years are not eligible for a waiver.

The law allows authorizers to grant renewal terms of up to 15 years. It also provides that schools that meet the definitions of being a high performing charter school are automatically renewed for 15 years.

Florida law states that prior to renewing or terminating a charter, the authorizer must notify the school of the proposed action in writing, stating the authorizer’s grounds. The law allows the school to request a formal hearing and allows the authorizer to determine whether it will be with the authorizer or an administrative law judge assigned by the state division of administrative hearing. In the case of non-renewal or termination, the law requires the authorizer to provide a letter stating the action, and the school can appeal to the District Court of Appeals with jurisdiction. State rules clarify that all such hearings are public meetings.

Florida law establishes a dissolution and closure process that addresses the redistribution of funds, treatment of debts and encumbrances, and the reassignment of students.

Florida law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, does not require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

12

Georgia

Under Georgia law, charter schools seeking renewal must submit a petition to their authorizer, comply with many of the petition requirements applicable to those seeking an initial charter, and provide an executive summary giving an overview of the school’s performance from the school’s perspective and information demonstrating its success. The law also requires renewal applications to include a copy of the school’s original petition with all proposed changes highlighted. The law requires authorizers to base their renewal decisions on this record.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may terminate a charter if a majority of the parents or guardians of students enrolled at or a majority of the faculty and instructional staff employed at the charter school vote by a majority vote to request the termination of its charter at a public meeting called with two weeks' advance notice and for the purpose of deciding whether to request the state board to declare the charter null and void.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may also terminate a charter if, after providing reasonable notice to the charter school and an opportunity for a hearing, the state board finds a failure to comply with any recommendation or direction of the state board with respect to a certain section of state law, a failure to adhere to any material term of the charter, including but not limited to the performance goals set forth in the charter, a failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, a violation of applicable federal, state, or local laws or court orders, the existence of competent substantial evidence that the continued operation of the charter school would be contrary to the best interests of the students or the community, or a failure to comply with any provision of a certain section of state law.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may also terminate a charter upon the written request of a local board for termination of a charter for a local charter school located within its school system if, prior to making such request, the local board provided reasonable notice to the charter school and an opportunity for a hearing, and determined the existence of any of the grounds described in a certain section of state law.

Georgia law requires authorizers to base their renewal decisions on evidence presented in the renewal application and provides authorizers with discretion in the length of the renewal term offered (not to exceed 10 years).

Consistent with Georgia law relating to public entities, charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions must be made at a public meeting. The law does not require authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Georgia law provides a dissolution process that ensures timely notification of parents regarding closure and alternate school options, the handling of school assets and unencumbered funds.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

12

Hawaii

Hawaii law requires that by September 1, authorizers must issue a performance report and charter contract renewal application guidance to any school whose contract will expire the following year, which must the school’s performance record to date and any weaknesses or concerns that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal. The law provides charter boards with 30 days to submit any corrections or clarifications for the report. It also requires them to submit their renewal applications by no later than March 1.

The law states clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal as grounded in the performance framework detailed in the contract. It states that contracts may be renewed for successive five-year terms, although it allows authorizers to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of the school.

The law allows authorizers to revoke the charter for failure to meet the state student performance standards, fiscal irresponsibility, or serious student or employee health or safety deficiencies. The law requires authorizers to develop revocation and non-renewal processes that provide timely notification and time for reasonable responses. It requires that decisions be made in a public hearing with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing. The law requires authorizers to report such actions to the state board of education along with assurances of law compliance.

The law requires authorizers to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

16

Idaho

No later than November 15 of each year, the law requires the authorized chartering entity to issue a public charter school performance report and charter renewal application guidance to any public charter school whose charter will expire the following year. It requires the performance report to summarize the public charter school's performance record to date, based upon the data required by the state’s charter law and the performance certificate and provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns determined by the authorized chartering entity concerning the public charter school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal, if not timely rectified. The law provides the public charter school with thirty days to respond to the performance report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.

The law provides that the renewal application guidance shall, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the public charter school to present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report, supporting its case for charter renewal and describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school. The law provides that the renewal application guidance shall include or refer explicitly to the criteria that will guide the authorized chartering entity's renewal decisions, which shall be based on independent fiscal audits and the performance framework set forth in the performance certificate.

No later than December 15, the law requires the governing board of a public charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the authorized chartering entity pursuant to the renewal application guidance issued by the authorized chartering entity.

The law requires an authorized chartering entity to renew any charter in which the public charter school met all of the terms of its performance certificate at the time of renewal. It provides that an authorized chartering entity may renew or nonrenew any charter in which the public charter school failed to meet one or more of the terms of its performance certificate.

The law provides that a charter may be revoked by the authorized chartering entity if the public charter school has failed to meet any of the specific, written conditions for necessary improvements established pursuant to certain provisions of state law by the dates specified.

In making charter renewal decisions, the law requires every authorized chartering entity to ground its decisions in evidence of the school's performance over the term of the performance certificate in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the performance certificate, ensure that data used in making renewal decisions are available to the school and the public, and provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision.

Following the initial three year term, the law provides that an authorized chartering entity may nonrenew or grant renewal for an additional five years, based upon the performance of the public charter school on the performance indicators, measures and metrics contained in the performance certificate. The law provides that subsequent renewals shall be for a term of five years.

The law requires an authorized chartering entity to develop revocation and nonrenewal processes that: provide the charter holders with a timely notification of the prospect of revocation or nonrenewal and of the reasons for such possible closure, which shall be limited to failure to meet the terms of the performance certificate or the written conditions established by the authorizer; allow the charter holders a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare a response; provide the charter holders with an opportunity to submit documents and give testimony challenging the rationale for closure and in support of the continuation of the school at an orderly proceeding held for that purpose; allow the charter holders to be represented by counsel and to call witnesses on their behalf; permit the recording of such proceedings; and, after a reasonable period for deliberation, require a final determination to be made and conveyed in writing to the charter holders.

The law provides that revocation may not occur until the public charter school has been afforded a public hearing, unless the authorized chartering entity determines that the continued operation of the public charter school presents an imminent public safety issue, in which case the charter may be revoked immediately. The law provides that public hearings shall be conducted by the authorized chartering entity or such other person or persons appointed by the authorized chartering entity to conduct public hearings and receive evidence as a contested case. The law provides that notice and opportunity to reply shall include, at a minimum, written notice setting out the basis for consideration of revocation, a period of not less than thirty days within which the public charter school can reply in writing, and a public hearing within thirty days of the receipt of the written reply.

The law provides that if an authorized chartering entity revokes or does not renew a charter, the authorized chartering entity shall clearly state, in a resolution of its governing board, the reasons for the revocation or nonrenewal.

The law requires authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

12

Illinois

Illinois law requires charter schools to submit a renewal proposal to its authorizer.

The law allows a charter to be revoked for committing a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter, failing to meet or make reasonable progress toward achievement of the content standards or pupil performance standards identified in the charter, failing to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violating any provision of law from which the charter school was not exempted.

The law provides that a charter may be renewed in incremental periods not to exceed five years.

In the case of revocation, the law requires the authorizer to notify the charter school in writing of the reason why the charter is subject to revocation. It requires the charter school to submit a written plan to the authorizer to rectify the problem, which must include a timeline for implementation not to exceed two years or the date of the charter's expiration, whichever is earlier.

If the authorizer finds that the charter school has failed to implement the plan of remediation and adhere to the timeline, the law requires it to revoke the charter. Except in situations of an emergency where the health, safety, or education of the charter school's students is at risk, the law provides that the revocation must take place at the end of a school year. The law allows a charter to appeal an authorizer’s notice of their decision to revoke or not renew a charter to the state board of education, whose decisions are subject to judicial review.

Under Illinois law, reports of denials, revocations, or non-renewals must consist of the charter proposal or current charter contract voted upon by the authorizers. The law requires the authorizers to determine a decision in a public forum and to send a copy of each board's resolution setting forth the board's action and its reasons for the action to the state board of education.

Illinois law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

12

Indiana

Indiana law provides that the renewal application process must, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the charter school to present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report, supporting its case for charter renewal, describe improvements undertaken or planned for the charter school, and detail the charter school's plans for the next charter term.

Not later than October 1 in the year in which the charter school seeks renewal of a charter, the law requires the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the charter authorizer under the renewal application guidance issued by the authorizer. The law requires the renewal application to include guidance from the authorizer and requires the guidance to include the performance criteria that will guide the authorizer's renewal decisions.

The law provides that the minimum standards for renewal and the standards to avoid closure imposed by authorizers on the charter school in the charter school agreement must include a requirement that the charter school not remain in the lowest category or designation of school improvement, including any alternative accountability category or designation, in the third year after initial placement in the lowest category or designation established under state law.

Current Indiana law provides that a charter may be revoked, after the authorizer has notified the school and given reasonable time to correct the issue, for failure to comply with the conditions or procedures established in the charter, failure to meet educational goals established in the charter, failure to comply with all applicable laws, failure to meet generally accepted fiscal management and accounting principles, and if one or more grounds for revocation exist as specified in the charter.

In making charter renewal decisions, the law requires an authorizer to make decisions based upon evidence of the school's performance over the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract, ensure the data used in making renewal decisions are available to the school and the public, and provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision.

Indiana law provides that a charter may be granted for not less than three years.

The law requires an authorizer to develop revocation and nonrenewal processes that provide the organizer with a timely notification of revocation or nonrenewal and the reasons for the possible revocation or nonrenewal, allow the organizer a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare a response, provide the organizer with an opportunity to submit documents and give testimony in support of the continuation of the charter school at a proceeding held for that purpose, allow the organizer access to representation by counsel, and after a reasonable period for deliberation, require that a final determination be made and conveyed in writing to the organizer.

The law requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Before any charter school closure decision, the law requires an authorizer to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets.

16

Iowa

In reference to renewal criteria, regulations simply state that in the absence of revoking the charter, it must be renewed at the time of renewal as part of a public hearing on the issue.

Iowa law allows a charter school to be renewed for up to four years.

Iowa law specifies that either the local or state board may revoke a charter for material violations or for not meeting the performance goals and objectives identified in the contract. It requires a local school board considering revocation or nonrenewal to provide timely notification to the advisory council, parents, and teachers, although written reasons are not required by statute. Iowa law permits appeal of any such action to the state board.

If the state board is considering revocation, Iowa law requires it to state the grounds for such action in writing and allow for an informal hearing.

Iowa law contains some details for student placement following revocation. In addition, it requires the charter application to contain a plan of operation to be implemented if the charter school is revoked or fails to renew its contract.
Iowa law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, schools seeking renewal must apply for it, authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and authorizers to 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).

8

Kansas

Kansas law provides that renewals should be approved only if the local school board and the state board of education determine that the charter school has demonstrated progress in achieving its program goals.

Kansas law provides that the local school board must revoke the charter of a school if the school: materially violates provisions contained in the charter; fails to make progress in achieving the program goals contained in the charter; fails to comply with fiscal accountability procedures as specified in the charter; or violates rules and regulations of the state board of education that have not been waived by the state board.

The law provides that charter renewal terms are five years.

Kansas law provides that prior to nonrenewing or revoking a charter, a local school board must hold a hearing on the issues in controversy and provide spokespersons for the charter school the opportunity to present information refuting the basis upon which the nonrenewal or revocation is premised. The law provides timelines for notification about the hearing and for announcing a decision after the hearing and requires the decision to nonrenew or revoke a charter to be in writing to the charter school and to specify the reasons for the nonrenewal or revocation. The law also allows the charter school authorities to renew procedures for authority to operate a charter school or to submit a request to the local school board for the reconsideration of its decision and includes a timeline for the local school board to act on such request.

Kansas law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

8

Louisiana

Louisiana law requires each charter school to provide a comprehensive report to its chartering authority at the end of its the third year. If the charter school is achieving its stated goals and objectives pursuant to its approved charter, then the authorizer must extend the charter for the additional two-year period as provided in law. It does not require a similar report at the end of tis fifth year of operation.

Louisiana law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it and requires each chartering authority to share their renewal criteria and procedures with their schools.

State law requires that any charter school overseen by a local school board is automatically renewed if it has met or exceeded the benchmarks established in accordance with the school and district accountability systems, has demonstrated growth in student achievement, and has had no significant audit findings for the three consecutive years prior to its consideration for renewal.

Louisiana law provides that no charter shall be renewed unless the charter renewal applicant can demonstrate, using standardized test scores, improvement in the academic performance of pupils over the term of the charter school's existence.

Louisiana law provides that an authorizer may revoke a charter contract if the school failed to meet improve the academic performance of students on standardized tests over the term of the charter school's existence, committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures provided for in the approved charter, failed to meet or pursue within the agreed timelines any of the academic and other educational results specified in the approved charter, failed to meet generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or violated any provision of law applicable to a charter school, its officers, or its employees.

Louisiana law allows charter contracts to be renewed for additional periods of not less than three nor more than ten years after thorough review by the approving chartering authority of the charter school's operations and compliance with charter requirements.

Louisiana law requires authorizers to notify schools in writing of any decisions made relative to renewal or non-renewal of a school’s charter not later than January 31st of the year in which the charter would expire.

Under state regulations, prior to meeting to present a recommendation of revocation of any charter authorized by the state board of education, the state department of education must notify the charter operator of the reasons. Regulations provide that the school must have an opportunity to provide input and a hearing must be held consistent with due process protections. These provisions are only applicable to charters authorized by the state board of education, not to charters authorized by other entities..

The law requires that revocation decisions must be made by a majority vote at a formal meeting of the local district board or the state board of education. It doesn’t address charters authorized by local charter authorizers.

State board rule details procedures for asset recordkeeping and disposition in the event of a school closure. However, they don’t ensure timely parent notification and orderly student and record transitions.

12

Maine

Maine law provides that during the fourth year of a charter school’s operation, the authorizer must issue a public charter school performance report. If the charter contract is expiring the next year, the law also requires the authorizer to offer charter renewal application guidance to the school. The law requires the performance report to include data on performance to date and notice of any weaknesses or concern that may jeopardize renewal. The law requires that schools be given the opportunity to respond and submit any corrections or clarifications and to submit additional evidence. In addition, the law requires such schools to officially apply for renewal by no later than September of their fifth year of operation.

The law includes clear criteria and nonrenewal/revocation. It also requires authorizers to make their renewal decisions based on evidence of the school’s performance over the term of the charter.

Maine law provides that an authorizer may renew a chart for successive terms of five years, and may issue a renewal for a full 15 years with public performance reports every five years.

The law requires authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal, including reasons, and reasonable time to respond.

Maine law requires renewal decisions to occur via a resolution of an authorizer’s governing body, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute includes school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

The law does not require authorizers to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions.

12

Maryland

Maryland law includes none of the model law's clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.

0

Massachusetts

Massachusetts regulations require that charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it under renewal application guidelines established by the state board of education. Regulations also require that applications for the renewal of Horace Mann charters must be submitted with the approval of the local teachers' union and the local school committee.

Massachusetts regulations require the state department of education to issue guidelines describing the evaluation process to be followed in reviewing applications for charter renewal, including protocols for renewal inspections. Regulations require that the decision by the state board of education to renew a charter must be based upon the presentation of affirmative evidence regarding the success of the school's academic program; the viability of the school as an organization; and the faithfulness of the school to the terms of its charter. Regulations require the state department to gather evidence regarding these issues from the renewal application and from other information, including but not limited to, a school's annual reports, financial audits, test results, site visit reports, and renewal inspection. Regulations provide that all charter schools must be evaluated on the same performance criteria as provided in the guidelines, provided, however, that the criteria take into account each school's charter and accountability plan.

Massachusetts regulations provide that the state board may suspend or revoke a charter for cause, including but not limited to: a material misrepresentation in the application for approval of the charter; failure to comply substantially with the terms of the charter, with any of the applicable provisions in state law, or with any other applicable law or regulation; financial insolvency; misappropriation, conversion, mismanagement, or illegal withholding of funds or refusal to pay any funds that belong to any person otherwise entitled thereto and that have been entrusted to the charter school or its administrators in their fiduciary capacities; fraud or gross mismanagement on the part of charter school administrators or Board of Trustees; criminal convictions on the part of the charter school or its Board of Trustees; or failure to fulfill any conditions imposed by the state board in connection with the grant of a charter.

Massachusetts regulations require that charters that are renewed must be for five years from the expiration of the previous charter under such conditions as the state board may establish under regulation. The law does not provide authorizers with the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

Massachusetts regulations require the state board to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal and reasonable time to respond and to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation.

Massachusetts regulations contain the following closure provisions:

• Charter schools must comply with the closing procedures established by the state department.
• Upon the revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary return of a commonwealth charter, title to all of the property of the charter school shall immediately vest in the Commonwealth, subject to the rights of any secured party holding a perfected security interest in the property of such charter school. Any funds remaining after the satisfaction of the charter school's obligations shall be deposited in the General Fund. This regulation shall not apply to the extent the charter school or any other interested party demonstrates that charter school property was purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by, persons or entities other than the Commonwealth, in which case ownership of the property shall be transferred to such persons or entities, unless otherwise voted by the Board of Trustees.
• Upon the revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary return of a Horace Mann charter, title to all of the property of the charter school shall immediately vest in the school district in which the school is located, subject to the rights of any secured party holding a perfected security interest in the property of such charter school. This regulation shall not apply to the extent the charter school or any other interested party demonstrates that charter school property was purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by, persons or entities other than the district or Commonwealth, in which case ownership of the property shall be transferred to such persons or entities, unless otherwise voted by the Board of Trustees.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

12

Michigan

Michigan law requires all charter contracts to detail the process and standards for renewal which must include increases in academic achievement of all groups of students as measured by assessments or other objective criteria as the most important factor in all renewal decisions. The law lists the standard grounds for revocation, and also requires that procedures and grounds for revocation be included in each charter’s contract. In addition, the law requires the revocation of any charter school operating for at least four years that is in the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in the state and in their second year of restructuring sanctions.

Michigan law does not dictate the length of renewal contracts, so authorizers are indeed allowed to grant renewal contract term lengths based on performance.

Statute contains closure provisions regarding assets and student placement for urban high school academies. It also contains closure provisions regarding student placements and funds for other types of charter schools, but nothing about required parent notification, record transfer and asset disposition.

Statute does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, does not require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, does not require authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond, does not require authorizers to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions, and does not require all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

It should be noted that the Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers has adopted a common set of standards. While such standards are great practice and address many of the missing requirements noted above, they are not required per statute or regulation.

8

Minnesota

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, organization, 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.

12

Mississippi

Statute requires the state authorizer to issue school performance renewal reports and requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it using renewal application guidance provided by the state authorizer. State law requires the state authorizer to have clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal decisions and to base decisions on evidence in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. The law provides that the state authorizer may not renew the charter of any charter school that, during the school's final operating year under the term of the charter contract, is designated an ""F"" school under the school accreditation rating system. Statute requires charter contract renewals to be for five-year terms, although it allows the state authorizer to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of a charter school.

State law requires the state authorizer to provide schools with timely notification of potential revocation and due process, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing. It requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with the state authorizer stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing. Statute requires the state authorizer to develop a charter school termination protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records, and proper disposition of public funds, property, and assets.

16

Missouri

According to Missouri law, a sponsor's renewal process of a charter school shall be based on the thorough analysis of a comprehensive body of objective evidence and consider if:

• The charter school has maintained results on its annual performance report that meet or exceed the district in which the charter school is located based on the performance standards that are applicable to the grade level configuration of both the charter school and the district in which the charter school is located in three of the last four school years.
• The charter school is organizationally and fiscally viable determining at a minimum that the school does not have a negative balance in its operating funds, a combined balance of less than three percent of the amount expended for such funds during the previous fiscal year, or expenditures that exceed receipts for the most recently completed fiscal year.
• The charter is in compliance with its legally binding performance contract and certain sections of state law.

The law requires a sponsor to have a policy to revoke a charter during the charter term if there is clear evidence of underperformance as demonstrated in the charter schools annual performance report in three of the last four school years or a violation of the law or the public trust that imperils students or public funds.

Under Missouri law, an authorizer can revoke a charter or take other appropriate remedial action, which may include placing the charter school on probationary status for no more than twelve months, provided that no more than one designation of probationary status shall be allowed for the duration of the charter contract, at any time if the charter school commits a serious breach of one or more provisions of its charter or on any of the following grounds: failure to meet the performance contract as set forth in its charter, failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violation of law.

Before revoking a charter, the law requires authorizers to provide appropriate due process protections to the school, including a timely written notice of an intent to revoke and a formal hearing upon request of the school’s board.

Like initial charter terms, the law provides that renewal terms are for not less than five years, nor greater than 10 years.

The law requires authorizers to hold administrative hearings upon a recommendation of revocation.

Along with data reflecting the academic performance standards indicated in state law, the law requires the sponsor to submit a revised charter application to the state board of education for review and renewal.

Beginning August first during the year in which a charter is considered for renewal, the law requires a charter school sponsor to demonstrate to the state board of education that the charter school is in compliance with federal and state law as provided in certain sections of state law and the school's performance contract including but not limited to those requirements specific to academic performance.

The law requires the state board of education to vote on a charter up for renewal at a regularly scheduled board meeting. The law also requires the state board of education to renew a school’s charter if a charter school sponsor demonstrates the objectives identified in state law. The law does not require authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

The law requires charter contracts to contain procedures to be implemented if the charter school should close including: orderly transition of student records to new schools and archival of student records; archival of business operation and transfer or repository of personnel records; submission of final financial reports; resolution of any remaining financial obligations; disposition of the charter school's assets upon closure; and a notification plan to inform parents or guardians of students, the local school district, the retirement system in which the charter school's employees participate, and the state board of education within thirty days of the decision to close.

For all new or revised charters, the law requires charter contracts to contain procedures to be used upon closure of the charter school requiring that unobligated assets of the charter school be returned to the department of elementary and secondary education for their disposition, which upon receipt of such assets shall return them to the local school district in which the school was located, the state, or any other entity to which they would belong.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, does not require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

8

Nevada

Nevada law requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it, and provides renewal application requirements and timelines.

Nevada law requires that an authorizer’s renewal decisions be based upon the criteria of the authorizer for the renewal of charter contracts and evidence of the performance of the charter school during the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance framework for the charter school.

Nevada law provides that an authorizer may revoke a written charter or terminate a charter contract before the expiration of the charter if the sponsor determines that: the charter school, its officers, or its employees committed a material breach of the terms and conditions of the written charter or charter contract, failed to comply with generally accepted standards of fiscal management, failed to comply with the provisions of the state’s charter law or any other statute or regulation applicable to charter schools, or if the charter schools holds a charter contract, has persistently underperformed, as measured by the performance indicators, measures, and metrics set forth in the performance framework for the charter school; the charter school has filed for a voluntary petition of bankruptcy, is adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent, or is otherwise financially impaired such that the charter school cannot continue to operate; or there is reasonable cause to believe that revocation or termination is necessary to protect the health and safety of the pupils who are enrolled in the charter school or persons who are employed by the charter school from jeopardy, or to prevent damage to or loss of the property of the school district or the community in which the charter school is located.

Nevada law provides that the authorizer of a charter school shall revoke the written charter or terminate the charter contract of the charter school if the charter school receives three consecutive annual ratings established as the lowest rating possible indicating underperformance of a public school, as determined by the state department of education pursuant to the statewide system of accountability for public schools.

Nevada law requires authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation, termination, and non-renewal decisions, a reasonable time to respond, and due process.

Nevada law provides that renewal contract terms are for six years. It does not allow authorizers to vary the length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

Nevada law requires governing bodies of charter schools that cease to operate voluntarily or upon revocation of their written charter contract to appoint an administrator of the charter school to act as a trustee during the process of the closure of the charter school and for one year after the date of closure.

12

New Hampshire

Regulations require the charter school board of trustees to apply for renewal no later than one year before the original charter is set to expire and require this application to include the school's fourth-year annual report for their first renewal and the most recent report for future renewals.

New Hampshire law requires that a charter school must meet or exceed the objective academic test results or standards and goals as set forth in it application in order to be renewed.

During the term of a charter, New Hampshire law provides that any charter school parent (or local school board involved) can submit a written petition to the state board or request the revocation of a charter. The law provides that after reasonable notice has been provided to all affected parties, the state board may revoke a school's charter prior to the expiration of its term under the following circumstances: the school commits a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in its charter application and contract; the school fails to meet generally accepted standards for fiscal management; the school significantly violates the law; or the school makes a material misrepresentation in its application or contract application; the school becomes insolvent or financially unstable.

Statute indicates that renewals are for a term of five years.

The law provides charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions including a written notice of concerns and the right to a public hearing.

The law requires renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions to be made in a public hearing, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires provisions for dissolution of a given charter school (including disposition of its assets) be detailed in the contract, as well as a plan for the education of the school’s pupils. In addition, statute details the disposition of assets if not clear within the charter contract.

New Hampshire law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and provide authorizers the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

12

New Jersey

New Jersey law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.

New Jersey law and regulations provide clear renewal criteria, including the review of annual performance reports, student performance on state standardized tests, monitoring visits, annual assessments of student composition of the school, and local district recommendations. State rules note that decisions are to be made based on evidence in alignment with the performance frameworks in their charter.

The law provides that a charter school may be closed for failing to fulfill any condition imposed by the state commissioner of education in connection with the granting of the charter or violating any provision of its charter.

The law allows the state commissioner to grant or deny a renewal application upon a comprehensive review of the school, including the renewal application, the school’s annual reports, comments on the annual reports from the local district, state test scores, monitoring of the school by the county superintendent and state commissioner, annual assessments of student composition of the school, the recommendation of the local district board, and interviews with school leaders, parents, and teachers conducted by the state commissioner.

Under New Jersey law, charters can be renewed for five years.

The law requires the state commissioner to provide written notice of a closure decisions to schools but applicable law and regulation offer limited language on due process protections. It also does not require the state commissioner to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting.

State rules include detailed language regarding school closure protocols, which include timely parent and staff notification, orderly student and record transition, and property and asset disposition.

New Jersey law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and provide authorizers the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

8

New Mexico

New Mexico law requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it. It requires the renewal application to include a report on the progress towards meeting the state public education department’s minimum education standards and other performance goals stated in each school’s charter contract academic performance framework.

New Mexico law allows an authorizer to suspend, revoke, or not renew a charter if it determines that the charter school did any of the following: committed a material violation or breach of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter contract; failed to meet or make substantial progress toward achievement of the department's minimum educational standards or student performance standards identified in the charter contract; failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

The law requires authorizers to develop processes for suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of a charter that provides the charter school with timely notification of the prospect of suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of the charter and the reasons for such action, allows the charter school a reasonable amount of time to prepare and submit a response to the authorizer’s action, and requires the final determination made by authorizer to be submitted to the state public education department. The law requires the authorizer to rule in a public hearing on the renewal application no later than 180 days prior to the charter contract’s expiration. The law allows charter schools to appeal authorizer decisions to revoke or not renew a charter to the state secretary of education.

New Mexico law allows a charter to be renewed for successive periods of five years each and allows approvals of less than five years if agreed to between the charter school and the authorizer.

New Mexico law requires all charter renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions to be made in a public meeting and requires authorizers to state their reasons for revocation or non-renewal in writing.

Prior to any charter school closure, the law requires an authorizer to develop closure protocols that include timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and records, and disposition of property and assets. The protocol must also specify tasks, timelines, and the duties of responsible parties.

The law does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

12

New York

New York law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.

The law provides that renewal applications must include a report on progress towards the school’s educational objectives, financial statement, annual reports, and indications of parent and student satisfaction.

For renewal, the law references the same criteria that applies to the approval of initial charter applications – an applicant must meet applicable legal requirements, demonstrate the ability to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner, and show it is likely to improve student learning and achievement and further the purposes of the law. The law also requires a school to show the efforts it has undertaken to enroll and retain comparable numbers of at-risk students (that is, students that are free and reduced price lunch eligible, receiving special education services, or classified as English Language Learners) as are enrolled and retained in district schools.

New York law provides that the renewal term may not exceed five years.

New York law provides that revocation or termination may be based on insufficient student achievement, serious violations of law, material and substantial violations of the charter, violations of civil service laws relating to employee rights, or repeated failure to meet targets for the enrollment and retention of at-risk students (though, on the last one, good faith efforts by a school can insulate it from action being taken against it).

New York law requires authorizers to provide schools facing closure with a notice of intent to revoke the charter, an opportunity to be heard, and time to correct the problems identified.

Since authorizers are subject to the state open meetings law, they are therefore required to make all renewal and closure decisions within a public meeting. Statute states that charter denials must include reasons in writing.

New York law requires applicants to establish viable processes for closure and dissolution, Including orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition. It does not address timely parent notification.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans. In practice, authorizers issue renewal application guidance.

12

North Carolina

State board policies offer renewal application guidance and detail a renewal process which requires schools to apply for renewal by completing their portion of the North Carolina Charter Schools Renewal Report, including a self-study that allows them to present evidence of success and progress towards the goals as outlined in the charter application and contract. State board policies requires the state department of public instruction to compile its portion of the renewal report, which includes various performance data collected by the authorizer.

North Carolina law allows the state board of education to terminate, not renew, or seek applicants to assume the charter through a competitive bid process established by the state board upon any of the following grounds: failure to meet the requirements for student performance contained in the charter; failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; violations of law; material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter; two thirds of the faculty and instructional support personnel at the school request that the charter be terminated or not renewed; or other good cause identified.

The law requires the state board of education to adopt criteria for adequate performance by a charter school and to identify charter schools with inadequate performance. It states that the criteria must include a requirement that a charter school that demonstrates no growth in student performance and has annual performance composites below 60% in any two years in a three-year period is inadequate.

If a charter school is inadequate two of the first three years of the charter, the law requires the school to develop a strategic plan to meet specific goals for student performance that are consistent with state board criteria and the mission approved in the charter school and requires the state board to review and approve the plan. The law authorizes the state board to terminate or not renew a charter for failure to demonstrate improvement under the strategic plan.

If a charter school is inadequate for two out of any three consecutive years and has had a charter for more than five years, the law requires the state board to oversee an improvement plan and without improvement to terminate, not renew the charter, or seek applicants to assume the charter through a competitive bid process established by the state board.

State board policy requires the authorizer to inform a charter school up for renewal about potential concerns, requires the school to create a corrective action plan, and gives the school one year to implement the corrective action plan.

At the end of a school’s charter term, North Carolina law allows the state board of education to renew the charter for subsequent periods not to exceed 10 years each. The law also requires the state board of education to review the operations of each charter school at least once every five years to ensure that the school is meeting the expected academic, financial, and governance standards.

All state board meetings must be open to the public, meaning all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions must be made in a public meeting. The law does not require authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, though.

12

Ohio

Ohio law does not require authorizers to issue renewal applications, does not require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans. In practice, however, some authorizers issue an application, while others adopt an automatic renewal clause in the contract.

Ohio law requires authorizers to notify a school by February 1 of its intent to terminate or not renew their contract. The law allows the school to request an informal hearing and requires a written decision to be issued within 14 days of such a hearing. It allows schools to then appeal the decision to the state board of education, which must conduct a hearing and issue its decision within 60 days.

The law allows a contract to be terminated or not renewed for fiscal mismanagement, failure to meet performance goals of the charter, violation of the law, or a "good cause" prior to the end of the school year. The law sets forth due process requirements and an appeal process.

The following circumstances trigger automatic closure of a charter school (with an exemption for schools in which a majority of the students are receiving special education):

* Schools serving no higher than grade three: For the 2013-14 school year, will be automatically closed if for two of the past three years has been in Academic Emergency OR has received an “F” in the Kindergarten through 3rd grade literacy measure.
* Schools serving any grade four through eight, but no grade above nine: For the 2013-14 school year, will be automatically closed if for two of the past three years was rated Academic Emergency AND showed less than one year of growth in either reading or math OR has received an “F” for the performance index score AND an “F” for the value added score.
* Schools offering any grade ten through twelve: For the 2013-14 school year, will be automatically closed if for two of the past three years has been in Academic Emergency OR has received an “F” for the performance index score and has not met the annual measureable objectives (AMOs).

Ohio law includes automatic closure requirements specific to dropout recovery public charter schools.

Ohio law does not address the number of years in the renewal term for the charter contract, but simply says that an authorizer may choose not to renew a contract at its expiration or may choose to terminate a contract prior to its expiration.

Under state law, at least 90 days prior to the termination or non renewal of a contract, the authorizer must notify the school of the proposed action in writing, which must include the reasons for the proposed action in detail, the effective date of the termination or non renewal, and a statement that the school may, within fourteen days of receiving the notice, request an informal hearing before the sponsor. The law requires the informal hearing to be held within seventy days of the receipt for a hearing request. Following the hearing, the law requires the authorizer to issue a written decision either affirming or rescinding the decision to terminate or not to renew the contract. The law requires authorizers that are public entities to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting. It does not include a similar provisions for authorizers that aren’t public entities.

Ohio law allows the charter holder to appeal an authorizer's decision to terminate a contract to the state board and provides that the decision by the state board is final.

12

Oklahoma

Oklahoma law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it. However, it does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

Oklahoma law provides that a charter school authorizer may deny the request for renewal if it determines the charter school has failed to complete the obligations of the contract or comply with the provisions of the state's charter schools law. It also provides that a charter school authorizer may terminate a contract during the term of the contract for failure to meet the requirements for student performance contained in the contract, failure to meet the standards of fiscal management, violations of the law, or other good cause.

Oklahoma law requires an authorizer to give written notice of its intent to deny the request for renewal at least eight months prior to expiration of the contract. It requires an authorizer to give at least 90 days written notice to the governing board prior to terminating the contract.

Under Oklahoma law, a renewed charter contract is effective for no longer than five years.

Oklahoma law allows charter school governing boards to request an informal hearing before the authorizer within 14 days of receiving notice of termination. The law is silent as to such an option for nonrenewal.

Oklahoma law does not require authorizers to make charter renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting.

Oklahoma law allows a charter school governing board to proceed to mediation and/or binding arbitration if its charter is not renewed or terminated.

Oklahoma law does not require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition. However, it requires a school's charter to include a provision specifying the method or methods to be employed for disposing of real and personal property acquired by the charter school upon expiration or termination of the charter or failure of the charter school to continue operations. It also states that, except as otherwise provided, any real or personal property purchased with state or local funds must be retained by the sponsoring school district. It also states that where a charter is not renewed or revoked, each affected students may enroll in his resident school district or apply for a transfer in accordance with the law.

8

Oregon

Oregon law provides that charter schools seeking renewal must submit a renewal request to their authorizer, and the authorizer must hold a public hearing and then either grant or deny the renewal within a specified timeline after the public hearing. The law and regulations specify a timeline for the renewal decision-making process but also allow a charter school and authorizer to agree to a different timeline.

The law and regulations state the general criteria upon which authorizers are to base renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions. Regulations require authorizers to base renewal evaluation primarily on review of charter school annual performance reports, annual audits, annual site visits and review, and any other information mutually agreed upon.

Oregon law provides that the first renewal of a charter must be for the same duration as the initial charter and that subsequent renewals must be for a minimum of five years but may not exceed 10 years.

Regulations provide for a public hearing prior to a renewal or non-renewal decision. In the event of a non-renewal decision, regulations allow the school to submit a revised renewal request and appeal to the state board of education. They also require an authorizer to state in writing the reasons for non-renewal, and make renewal, non-renewal and revocation decisions subject to open-meetings requirements.

Oregon law requires an authorizer to provide at least 60 days’ notice to a charter school prior to revocation of a charter (which can be waived in case of an emergency), provide a public hearing upon request of the school, and state in writing the reasons for revocation. It also allows a charter school to appeal a revocation decision to the state board of education.

Regulations state generally how the assets of a closed charter school shall be distributed. However, they do not require authorizers to have school closure protocols as recommended in the model law.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

8

Pennsylvania

Statute does not formally address renewal applications, but does mention charter schools “seeking renewal” and a comprehensive review at the time of renewal. There are no requirements for authorizers to issue performance reports or renewal applications or guidance.

Pennsylvania law offers general guidelines for renewal decisions, whereby authorizers are to conduct a comprehensive review prior to granting a five-year renewal. It provides that they can non-renew or terminate for material violations of the statute or their charter, as well as failure to meet state requirements for student performance or any performance standard set forth in the written signed charter.

In most districts, the law provides for five-year renewals. It also allows authorizers that are school districts of the first class to sign one-year renewal contracts if adequate data does not exist to warrant a full five-year renewal.

The law requires authorizers to provide notice of revocation or nonrenewal that states the grounds for such action with reasonable specificity and hold a public hearing regarding the issues. At such hearing, it requires the authorizer to present evidence supporting the revocation or nonrenewal and give the charter school reasonable opportunity to offer testimony before taking action in a public meeting. The law allows charter schools to appeal non-renewal or revocation decision to the state appeals board, which can order the local school board to rescind its revocation or nonrenewal decision.

Although authorizers are not required to have closure protocols, statute contains detailed school closure processes, including special provisions for virtual schools, which must be followed in the case of nonrenewal or termination of a charter school.

8

Rhode Island

Regulations provide that the state board of education may conduct a review of a school’s charter. They also note the data that should be considered, including evidence from a renewal application, by the state board of education for making decisions regarding renewal. While the regulations mention a “renewal application,” it is unclear if such applications are required of all charters as part of the renewal process.

State law provides that charter renewal contracts may be up to five years, although it does not provide detail on what should determine the length of the continuance. If the state board of education does not conduct a renewal hearing for an existing charter school, the charter shall be renewed for another five-year period.

Rhode Island law states that a charter may be revoked for material violations of those provisions contained within the charter, failing to meet education objectives, fiscal mismanagement, or violation of the law. The law also provides that a charter may be revoked if after three consecutive years of operation, the school is not a “high-performing charter school” that has demonstrated substantial progress improving student achievement and has the management and leadership necessary to establish a thriving, financially viable school.

After denying or prior to non-renewing a charter, state law requires the state department to hold a hearing on the issues in controversy. Regulations add further detail in that schools must be notified in writing about the concerns, given reasonable length of time to correct the concerns, and offered an administrative hearing in which the school has the burden of proof to demonstrate it has met the terms of the charter and other applicable legal requirements.

While the law requires the state to provide its reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, it does not require that these decisions be made in a public meeting.

Regulations require that in the event of a closed school, the state commissioner of education must coordinate student and record transitions (but nothing is mentioned about timely parent notification or property and asset disposition).

8

South Carolina

South Carolina law dictates that schools must submit a renewal application and identifies what such applications must contain. However, it does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

The law provides that a charter school may be closed for committing a material violation of the conditions, standards, or procedures provided for in the charter application, failing to meet or make reasonable progress toward pupil achievement standards identified in the charter application, failing to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violating any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

South Carolina law requires authorizers to annually evaluate the progress schools make towards the pupil achievement standards identified in the charter application and use that information in making renewal or revocation decisions.

The law provides that renewal terms are for 10 years with annual reviews. It does not allow authorizers to vary the length of the charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

At least 60 days before not renewing or terminating a charter school, the law requires the authorizer to notify the school in writing and make a hearing available.

The law requires authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, but does not require all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting.

South Carolina law addresses how a charter school’s assets are to be handled upon dissolution, but does not ensure timely parent notification and orderly student and record transitions.

8

Tennessee

Tennessee law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it. One year prior to the date on which a charter school is required to submit a renewal application, the law requires the authorizer to submit to the charter school a performance report that directly reflects the renewal application.

Tennessee law provides that a charter agreement may be revoked or denied renewal if the chartering authority determines that the charter school committed a material violation of any of the standards, conditions or procedures set forth in law, failed to meet generally-accepted standards of fiscal management, flagrantly disregarded the charter agreement or the provisions of the Charter Schools Act, or failed to remain out of priority status. Except in the case of fraud, the law provides that a decision to revoke or not renew a charter becomes effective at the close of the academic year. The provisions allowing for revocation or nonrenewal for failure to remain out of priority status apply only to those decisions where an LEA is the chartering authority.

Tennessee law requires that the term of charter agreements is 10 years. It also provides that an interim review of a charter school must be conducted by its authorizer under guidelines developed by the state department of education in the fifth year of a charter school's initial period of operation and also in the fifth year following any renewal of a charter agreement. Such guidelines must require a charter school to submit to the authorizer a report on the progress of the school in achieving the goals, objectives, pupil performance standards, content standards and other terms of the approved charter agreement.

While Tennessee law doesn’t require authorizers to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions, it does allow for limited revocation or nonrenewal appeals to the state board of education, except for revocations or non-renewals based on a failure to remain out of priority status, flagrant disregard of the charter agreement or present law, fraud, and misappropriation of funds.

Tennessee law requires all renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for their decisions in writing.

Tennessee law contains closure protocols to address student transitions, asset disposition, and debt responsibility.

Tennessee law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, require authorizers to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract, provide authorizers the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues, and require authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond.

8

Texas

The law requires the state commissioner of education to develop and by rule adopt a procedure for renewal, denial of renewal, or expiration of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school at the end of the term of the charter. It specifies that the procedure must include consideration of the performance under state law of the charter holder and each campus operating under the charter and must include three distinct processes, which must be expedited renewal, discretionary consideration of renewal or denial of renewal, and expiration.

Texas law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.

Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for expedited renewal of the charter, the charter automatically renews unless, not later than the 30th day after the date the charter holder submits the petition, the commissioner provides written notice to the charter holder that expedited renewal of the charter is denied. The law provides that the commissioner may not deny expedited renewal of a charter if: the charter holder has been assigned the highest or second highest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial performance accountability rating under state law, indicating financial performance that is satisfactory or better for the three preceding school years; and no campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years or such a campus has been closed.

Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter and the charter does not meet the criteria for expedited renewal or for expiration, the commissioner shall use the discretionary consideration process. The law provides that the commissioner's decision under the discretionary consideration process must take into consideration the results of annual evaluations under the performance frameworks established under state law. The law requires the commissioner to provide a decision to the charter regarding renewal within 60 days of the renewal application.

Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter, the commissioner may not renew the charter and shall allow the charter to expire if: the charter holder has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for any three of the five preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under state law indicating financial performance that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned any combination of these ratings for any three of the five preceding school years; or any campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years and such a campus has not been closed.

Texas law allows a district board of trustees to place on probation or revoke a charter it grants if the board determines that the charter committed a material violation of the charter, failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or failed to comply with the state’s charter school law or state agency rule.

The law requires the state commissioner to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school or reconstitute the governing body of the charter holder if the commissioner determines that the charter holder committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter, failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, failed to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the students enrolled at the school, failed to comply with applicable state law or rule, failed to satisfy the performance framework standards adopted under state law, or is imminently insolvent as determined by the commissioner in accordance with commissioner rule.

The law requires the commissioner to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if: the charter holder has been assigned an unacceptable performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under state law indicating financial performance lower than satisfactory for the three preceding school years; or the charter holder has been assigned any combination of these ratings for the three preceding school years.

Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding a state-authorized school’s performance over the term of the charter contract. However, these laws and regulations are not applicable to district authorizers.

Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to provide state-authorized charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond. The law requires each district board of trustees that authorizes a charter to adopt a procedure to be used for placing on probation or revoking a charter it grants that must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the charter and to parents and guardians of students at the charter.

Texas law states that a charter will be granted for five years with a possible renewal of 10 years. The Texas Education Agency treats the charter application as an administrative rule. However, it is not applicable to district authorizers.

Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions. In practice, the state education agency does not provide for a due process hearing if the reason for the adverse action is based on a "Chapter 39" violation. For Chapter 39 violations (i.e., repeated financial and/or academic accountability failures), there is a form of due process that is found in the state’s administrative regulations, but that process arguably is not as exacting as the due process afforded for adverse actions that are not Chapter 39 related.

The law requires that the records of an open-enrollment charter school that ceases to operate must be transferred in the manner specified by the commissioner to a custodian designated by the commissioner. It allows the state commissioner to designate any appropriate entity to serve as custodian, including the agency, a regional education service center, or a school district. However, these laws and regulations are not applicable to district authorizers.

The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, and does not require that all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

8

Utah

Charter contracts in Utah do not expire or require renewal; they perpetuate indefinitely unless revoked. Therefore, the law does not set forth requirements, criteria, processes, or other guidance for renewal or non-renewal. The law sets forth general grounds for revocation of a charter.

Utah law requires an authorizer planning to revoke a charter to notify the school’s governing body and, if the charter school is a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program, the Utah Charter School Finance Authority in writing of the planned termination and the reasons for it. It also requires the authorizer to give the school an informal hearing, with timely notice, if requested. If the authorizer proposes to terminate the charter of a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program, the law requires the authorizer to conduct a hearing. The law provides that an authorizer may not terminate the charter of a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program without mutual agreement of the Utah Charter School Finance Authority and the authorizer.

The law requires revocation decisions to be made in a public meeting, with reasons for revocation stated in writing. It allows charter schools to appeal termination decisions to the state board of education.

The law sets forth essential steps for charter schools to follow in the event of closure. The law does not explicitly state the authorizer’s role and responsibility in overseeing school closure to ensure the protocol is followed, but it does require the authorizer to ensure the completion of a closing school’s final audit.

8

Virginia

Virginia law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.

However, Virginia law does require charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it. The law provides the following renewal application requirements: (1) A report on the progress of the public charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, program and performance standards for students, and such other conditions and terms as its authorizer may require upon granting initial approval of the charter application; and (2) A financial statement, on forms prescribed by the state board, that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories for the public charter school and that has been concisely and clearly written to enable its authorizer and the public to compare such costs to those of other schools or comparable organizations.

Virginia law provides that authorizers can revoke a charter contract if they determine that a school violates conditions, standards or procedures established in the charter application, fails to make reasonable progress towards academic performance standards, fails to meet sufficient fiscal management standards, or violates applicable law.

If a local school board revokes or fails to renew a charter contracts, state law provides that it must provide the reasons in writing and post that information on its website. It also requires the local school board to submit documentation to the state board of education as to the rationale for the local school board’s denial or revocation of the charter school application.

Virginia law provides that a charter may be renewed for a period not to exceed five school years.

4

Washington

Statute requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports and requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it using renewal application guidance provided by the authorizer.

State law requires authorizers to have clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal decisions and to base decisions on evidence in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. Statute notes that a given charter may not be renewed if, at the time of the renewal application, the school’s performance falls in the bottom quartile of schools on the state’s accountability index unless the school demonstrates exceptional circumstances that the authorizer finds justifiable.

Statute requires charter contract renewals to be for five-year terms, although it allows the authorizer to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of a charter school.

State law requires authorizers to provide schools with timely notification of potential revocation and due process, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing. It requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires authorizers to develop a charter school termination protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records, and proper disposition of public funds, property, and assets.

16

Wisconsin

Wisconsin law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. Under Wisconsin law, a charter may be revoked for violating its contract, if the pupils enrolled in the charter school failed to make sufficient progress toward attaining the state education goals, for failing to comply with generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or for violating the state's charter school law.

Wisconsin law specifies that a charter may be renewed for one or more additional terms not to exceed 5 years.

Wisconsin law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, require schools seeking renewal to apply for it, require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans, require authorizers to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract, provide authorizers the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues, require authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond, require authorizers to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions, require authorizers to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting and to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, and require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

4

Wyoming

Wyoming law requires charter schools to submit a renewal application to their district authorizer in order to seek renewal, containing a report on the charter school’s academic performance progress and a financial statement in a format required by the state board of education. The law also requires the state superintendent to provide a uniform renewal application “form” (questions, guidelines, and evaluation criteria) that all charter schools and authorizers must use. The content of the form developed by the state superintendent is consistent with the intent of the model law.

The law states grounds for non-renewal or revocation, but not renewal.

The law allows a charter to be renewed for up to five-year terms. It permits a charter school and its authorizer to agree to extend the length of the charter beyond five years for the purpose of enhancing the terms of any lease or financial obligation.

The law requires authorizers to make renewal, non-renewal or revocation decisions in an open meeting and to state reasons for non-renewal or revocation in writing.

The law does not require a public hearing or opportunity for a school to make its case prior to a revocation or non-renewal decision. However, the law provides for an appeal to the state board of education in the event of non-renewal or revocation.

8