Measuring Up



weight: 4 | possible total: 16

8. Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes

8A. The collection and analysis of student outcome data at least annually by authorizers (consistent with performance framework outlined in the contract). 8B. Financial accountability for charter schools (e.g., Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, independent annual audit reported to authorizer). 8C. Authorizer authority to conduct or require oversight activities. 8D. Annual school performance reports produced and made public by each authorizer. 8E. Authorizer notification to their schools of perceived problems, with opportunities to remedy such problems. 8F. Authorizer authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

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 comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. However, it does allow the state department of education to audit a charter school’s program during the term of a charter contract and to take any action necessary to ensure compliance with federal and state law, including the withholding of money.

4

Arizona

Statutory provisions require academic performance data to be collected annually by each authorizer.

Arizona law requires charter schools to have an annual financial audit.

The law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. However, it requires charter schools to participate in the state’s accountability system, which includes annual state-produced school report cards, which are public. While such report cards detail academic performance on the state assessments, they do not include all the types of measures (including financial performance, compliance, and school-specific measures) that an authorizer’s performance report would include as outlined in the model law.

Arizona law states that the authorizers have oversight and administrative responsibility for the schools they authorize. In implementing their oversight and administrative responsibilities, it requires them to ground their actions in evidence of the charter holder’s performance in accordance with the performance framework adopted by the authorizer, which shall include the academic performance expectations of the charter school and the measurement of sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations, the operational expectations of the charter school, including adherence to all applicable laws and obligations of the charter contract, and intervention and improvement policies. It also requires authorizers to notify schools of concerns and allows authorizers to require a corrective action plan and disciplinary actions (such as withholding up to 10% of the charter’s monthly state aide), enter into a consent agreement regarding the resolution of the noncompliance, or begin revocation.

12

Arkansas

Arkansas law and regulations require that open-enrollment charter schools submit their scores for all students enrolled for standardized assessments to the state department of education within ten calendar days of the close of the fourth quarter of each school year. They also require the state department 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, on-site monitoring, and other terms of the school’s charter

Arkansas law provides that charter schools are subject to the same auditing and accounting requirements as any other public school district, including an annual fiscal audit.

Arkansas law and regulation allow authorizers to conduct or require oversight activities.

While the law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in each charter, it does require each charter school to provide an annual report to parents, the community, and the authorizer.

Arkansas law provides the authorizer with the authority to require charter schools to appear before it to discuss the results of the state department's annual evaluation and to present further information as needed. It requires the authorizer to notify the charter school of any concerns, and allows schools to request a hearing on these concerns. It also provides the authorizer with the authority to modify a charter, place it on probation, revoke, or deny renewal.

12

California

The law requires each authorizer to identify at least one staff member as a contact person for each charter school under its oversight, visit each charter school at least annually, ensure that each charter school complies with all reports required by law, monitor the fiscal condition of each charter school, and provide timely notification to the state department of education concerning charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions, both before and after they occur.

California law requires charter schools to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and to provide multiple types of annual reports (e.g., attendance reports, school accountability report cards, local control accountability plans) to their authorizer, county office of education, and state board of education. In addition, the law requires a charter school to provide a report to its authorizer and the state on its annual audit and to produce certain annual or periodic reports for their authorizer (e.g., a preliminary budget, a first and second interim financial report, and an unaudited annual financial report). These reports are available to the public.

The law entitles an authorizer to inspect or observe any part of a charter school at any time. California law requires charter schools to respond to all reasonable inquiries from its authorizer, the county office of education, or the state department of education. Regulations set forth compliance monitoring procedures specifically for virtual or non-classroom-based schools.

The law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with a performance framework set forth in a charter contract. However, it requires that charter schools participate in the state’s accountability system, including annual state-produced school report cards, which are public. These report cards show academic performance on the state assessments, but do not include all the types of measures (including financial performance, compliance, and school-specific measures) that an authorizer’s performance report would normally include.

The law requires an authorizer to notify a school of potential revocation and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy identified problems. Such notification and opportunity to cure is a corrective action. The law also permits the state board of education to take corrective action with a locally-chartered school under certain circumstances.

The law requires charter schools to establish local policies and procedures to allow a complaint that a charter school has not complied with the requirements of the state-mandated local control accountability plan to be filed with a charter school pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.

12

Colorado

Colorado law requires authorizers to annually review a charter school’s performance. At a minimum, the law requires the review to include the charter school’s progress in meeting the objectives identified in the plan the charter school is required to implement pursuant to state law and the results of the charter school’s most recent annual financial audit. The law requires authorizers to provide to the charter school written feedback from the review and include the results of the charter school’s annual review in the body of evidence that the authorizer takes into account in deciding whether to renew or revoke the charter and that supports the renegotiation of the charter contract.

Colorado law requires charter schools to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management and to annually complete a governmental audit that complies with state requirements. In addition, the law requires all public schools, including charters, to post comprehensive financial information online.

If a charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan pursuant to state law for a second consecutive year, the law requires the charter school to present to its authorizer, in addition to the turnaround plan, a summary of the changes made by the charter school to improve its performance, the progress made in implementing the changes, and evidence, as requested by the authorizer, that the charter school is making sufficient improvement to attain a higher accreditation category within two school years or sooner. If the authorizer finds that the charter school’s evidence of improvement is not sufficient or if the charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan for a third consecutive school year, the law provides that the authorizer may revoke the school’s charter.

Colorado law requires authorizers to annually report to the state department of education state-required information to produce annual school performance reports on each school, which are made public by the state.

Colorado law allows authorizers to request, from the state commissioner of education, temporary intervention powers over a charter school or charter management organization in certain emergency situations. The law sets clear guidelines as to how, when, and for long an authorizer may intervene in such situations if granted authority by the state commissioner.

16

Connecticut

Connecticut law does not. In practice, the state department of education (as authorizer) collects a significant amount of performance data to help determine which schools can demonstrate a record of achievement so that they might enroll more students per grade per the state’s cap provisions.

While the law does not require authorizers to collect and analyze student outcome data at least annually and to produce and publish annual school performance reports, the law requires charter schools to submit an annual profile to the state commissioner of education as well as an annual report which covers the educational progress of students, financial conditions (including an audit statement), accomplishment of mission, racial/ethnic composition of students and efforts to increase diversity, and best practices.

Connecticut law allows the state commissioner of education to conduct oversight activities, place a charter school on probation, and require the implementation of a corrective action plan based upon failure to adequately demonstrate student progress or other material violation concerns.

12

Delaware

Delaware regulation requires the state department of education to conduct annual performance reviews of state-authorized charters based on a performance framework and to provide the results of the performance review to the school. This provision does not apply to charter schools authorized by local school boards.

Delaware law requires charter schools to undergo annual financial audits. It also provides that when a charter school knows or reasonably should know that it has or will become unable to pay in full its projected expenses as they fall due, the school must immediately so advise the state department of education and must provide the state department with all financial information. The law provides that charter schools that fail to do so must be placed on formal review.

Delaware law gives authorizers authority to conduct or require oversight activities, limited to the approval criteria for a charter school outlined in state law.

Delaware law requires charter schools to submit annual performance reports. The law provides that the state department of education must determine content of annual reports, in addition to progress meeting performance goals and standards and a financial statement.

Delaware law allows an authorizer to notify a charter of potential violations and submit the charter to formal review to determine whether the charter school is violating the terms of its charter and whether to order remedial measures.

Delaware law allows an authorizer to place a school on a probationary status subject to terms determined by the approving authority that are directly relevant to the violation or violations.

12

District of Columbia

The law requires each charter school to submit to the authorizer an annual report on its financial, administrative, and programmatic operations, and make the report available to the public upon request. It requires the annual report to include a report on the school’s charter fulfillment and student performance on any district-wide assessments and data on enrollment, attendance, parent involvement, and graduation and college admission (if applicable). The law also requires the report to include a financial statement audited by an independent certified public accountant or accounting firm from a list approved by a committee representing the authorizer and the DC Chief Financial Officer, in accordance with federal government auditing standards. The law requires charter schools to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The law explicitly gives the authorizer the authority and responsibility to oversee and monitor charter school performance and compliance. The law does not require the authorizer to notify schools of perceived problems or provide opportunity to remedy such problems, nor does it explicitly empower the authorizer to take corrective actions short of revocation. In practice, however, the PCSB provides notification to their schools of perceived problems and gives them opportunities to remedy such problems.

12

Florida

Florida law requires charter schools to participate in the state’s academic accountability system and charter school governing boards to annually report to their authorizers on the school's progress using an on-line annual accountability report format developed by the state department of education. The law requires the authorizer to pass along these performance reports to the state commissioner of education. Such reports are public records.

The law requires charter schools to commit to viable internal audit procedures and controls, including an annual financial audit. State regulations require charter schools to submit monthly financial statements to authorizers and require authorizers to notify a charter school’s governing board in writing within seven days of determining a deteriorating financial condition as defined in regulation. State regulations require both parties to develop a corrective action plan.

Florida law provides that the authorizer has the responsibility to monitor and review a charter school’s progress towards the goals established in the charter and the revenues and expenditures of the school as well as the responsibility to ensure that the charter school is operating in accordance with its contract and applicable law.
The law provides that a charter school that has earned a grade of "D" or "F" must appear before the authorizer to present information concerning each contract component having noted deficiencies and must submit to the authorizer for approval a school improvement plan to raise student achievement.

If a charter school earns three consecutive grades of "D," two consecutive grades of "D" followed by a grade of "F," or two nonconsecutive grades of "F" within a 3-year period, the law requires the charter school governing board to choose one of the following corrective actions: contract for educational services to be provided directly to students, instructional personnel, and school administrators, as prescribed in state board rule; contract with an outside entity that has a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school; reorganize the school under a new director or principal who is authorized to hire new staff; or voluntarily close the charter school. The law requires a charter school implementing a corrective action that does not improve by at least one letter grade after two full school years of implementing the corrective action to select a different corrective action.

12

Georgia

The law does not require the collection and analysis of student outcome data at least annually by authorizers consistent with performance framework outlined in the contract and does not require authorizers to issue annual school performance reports. However, it does require charter schools to complete an annual performance report and provide it to the local board, state department of education, and parents and guardians of students.

Georgia law requires that charter schools define and follow a prudent financial plan, and that they report annually on fiscal performance, consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Georgia law requires authorizers to ensure that charter school performance goals are being met and the school is complying with applicable accountability provisions and fiscal plans.

The law does not provide that authorizers may notify their schools of perceived problems and give them opportunities to remedy such problems and does not provide authorizers with the authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation. However, in certain instances, the law allows the state board of education to propose that an amendment be made to a charter to address concerns raised by a district leading to the district seeking termination.

8

Hawaii

Hawaii law requires each of these model law items within its law:

* The collection and analysis of student outcome data at least annually by authorizers (consistent with the performance framework outlined in the contract).
* Financial accountability for charter schools (e.g., Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, independent annual audit reported to authorizer).
* Authorizer authority to conduct or require oversight activities.
* Authorizer notification to their schools of perceived problems, with opportunities to remedy such problems.
* Authorizer authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

16

Idaho

The law provides that an authorized chartering entity shall continually monitor the performance and legal compliance of the public charter schools it oversees, including collecting and analyzing data to support ongoing evaluation according to the performance certificate. For each public charter school it oversees, the law requires the authorizer to be responsible for analyzing and reporting all data from state assessment in accordance with the performance framework. Regulations authorize and require chartering entities to engage in compliance monitoring to ensure that each charter school meets the terms of its charter and complies with applicable laws. The regulations address performance monitoring through annual school accreditation reports and annual reporting on educational goal attainment.

Idaho law requires charter schools to submit to their authorizer an annual audit of fiscal operations and a copy of the school’s accreditation report. It also requires charter schools to comply with the same financial reporting requirements as school districts.

The law provides that every authorized chartering entity shall have the authority to conduct or require oversight activities that enable the authorized chartering entity to fulfill its responsibilities, including conducting appropriate inquiries and investigations, so long as those activities are consistent with the intent of the state’s charter law, adhere to the terms of the performance certificate, and do not unduly inhibit the autonomy granted to public charter schools.

The law provides that each authorized chartering entity shall annually publish and make available to the public a performance report for each public charter school it oversees, in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the performance certificate. It also provides that authorized chartering entity may require each public charter school it oversees to submit an annual report to assist the authorized chartering entity in gathering complete information about each school consistent with the performance framework.

Idaho law requires authorizers to give charter schools written notice of perceived defects and reasonable opportunity to cure such defects through a corrective action plan developed by the school. Apart from providing such notice of problems, the law does not explicitly empower authorizers to take corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

16

Illinois

The law does not require the collection and analysis of student outcome data annually by authorizers nor does it require schools or authorizers to develop annual school performance reports that are made public. Instead, it requires authorizers to submit a bi-annual report regarding their schools to the state board of education.

The law requires charter schools to submit annual audits of their financial and administrative operations as conducted by an independent auditor.

Illinois law specifically states the powers of authorizers to include the monitoring and oversight of charter schools.

The law requires authorizers to notify a charter school subject to revocation 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 a local school board’s notice of their decision to revoke or not renew a charter to the State Charter School Commission, whose decisions are subject to judicial review.

12

Indiana

The law requires authorizers to submit an annual report to the state department of education that contains the following information: results of all standardized testing, end of course assessments, and any other assessments used for each sponsored school; a description of the educational methods and teaching methods employed for each sponsored school, attendance rates for each sponsored school, graduation rates if appropriate, including attainment of Core 40 and academic honors diplomas for each sponsored school, and student enrollment data for each sponsored schools including the number of students enrolled and the number of students expelled, and schools that closed or for which the charter was not renewed, and the reasons for the closure or nonrenewal.

Under state law, a charter must meet generally accepted government accounting principles or face revocation.

Indiana law requires authorizers to oversee a charter's compliance with applicable laws and the charter application.

Indiana law requires authorizers to notify schools of problems that lead to revocation and provide schools with opportunities to remedy such problems.

Indiana law is silent on authorizer authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation. In practice, however, authorizers have investigated schools, mandated corrective actions, and placed others on probation. Schools typically comply out of fear of nonrenewal or revocation.

12

Iowa

Iowa law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes.

Iowa law requires charter schools to be subject to the same financial audits as a school district.

Regulations require that the state department of education must periodically review charter schools to ensure continuing compliance with the school’s contract, and that they may schedule mandatory meetings with such schools at the department’s sole discretion.

Iowa law requires charter schools to submit a report at least annually to the local school board, advisory council, and state board of education containing the information required by those entities (with such reports being public). However, there is no requirement for authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in each charter as provided in the model law.

Statute and regulation only require authorizer notification of any problems as part of revocation processes, but there are no formal provisions for corrective action processes.

4

Kansas

Kansas law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. However, Kansas law provides that at the conclusion of each school year in which a charter school is operated in a school district, the local school board must evaluate the impact the charter school has had on the educational system of the district and submit the evaluation to the state board of education. If applicable, the evaluation must include a statement regarding the reasons why a charter school was discontinued or did not seek renewal and whether the program will continue as a non-charter school. Kansas also publishes report cards for each public school in the state, including public charter schools.

4

Louisiana

State rules dictate that a charter school must provide its authorizer with an annual performance report addressing academic performance in that year. In addition, per state board rule, each charter school receives a school performance score as part of the state’s assessment and accountability program, with detailed procedures adopted in state board rule for a school’s initial years and then for its sixth year of operation and thereafter.

Louisiana law requires that charter schools be evaluated annually on the timely submission of budgets, audits, annual financial reports, and all other financial reporting and compliance with applicable financial budgeting, accounting, and auditing laws, regulations, and procedures.

Under state law, certain methods and procedures for monitoring a charter school by the authorizer must be established in the charter agreement.

The law requires the state board of education to evaluate a charter school's performance based on the state department of education's oversight and monitoring of the charter school's compliance with its statutory, regulatory, and contractual obligations and all reporting requirements. The law requires the state board to communicate its assessments to the schools. Via state regulations, the state board has established performance benchmarks by year of operation and if a school falls short, the state board may require corrective steps to be taken by the school. These provisions are only applicable to charters authorized by the state board of education, not to charters authorized by other entities.

12

Maine

Maine law explicitly requires authorizers to collect, analyze, and report all outcome and financial data in accordance with the performance framework outlined in each school’s contract. Statute also provides authorizers with clear authority to monitor the performance and compliance of their charter schools.

The law provides that authorizers must provide written notice to their schools of perceived problems and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy the problems.

The law requires charter schools to annually engage an external auditor, and submit the audits to their authorizer.
It does not require authorizers to publicly issue annual school performance reports.

12

Maryland

Maryland law includes none of the model law's provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes.

0

Massachusetts

Massachusetts regulations allow the state department of education to send evaluation teams to visit each charter school on an annual basis to corroborate and augment the information provided in the school’s annual report in accordance with guidelines issued by the department. State regulations also allow site visit teams to gather any other evidence relevant to the school's performance and provide that the written reports from these site visits become part of the charter school's record, along with any written addendum that the school wishes to submit in response to a report.

Massachusetts regulations require a charter school to submit to the state board of education and the local school committee and make available to every parent or guardian of its enrolled students and to every parent or guardian who expresses interest in enrolling in that charter school, an annual report.

Massachusetts regulations require each charter school to have an independent audit conducted of its accounts, consistent with generally accepted auditing principles, and consistent with any guidelines the state department of education may issue. Regulations require charter schools to file audits annually and file a Charter School End-of-Year Financial Report which is similar to that filed by traditional districts.

Massachusetts regulations require that a charter school is responsible for filing any data reports or school returns as required under public school law and regulations, in accordance with guidelines published by the state department of education ensuring that charter schools are not asked for the same data more than once.

According to Massachusetts regulations, as required by the state department of education, a charter school must submit written documentation that the school remains in compliance with all building, health, safety, and insurance requirements established as conditions for charter granting and that all related inspections and approvals are current.

Massachusetts regulations require a charter school to notify the state department of education in writing immediately of any change in circumstances that may have a significant impact on a charter school's ability to fulfill its goals or mission as stated in its charter. Within 30 days after receiving such notice, regulations require the state commissioner of education to determine whether any remedial action is required and to recommend such action, if necessary, to the state board of education. Regulations provide that such actions may include suspension or revocation of the charter or placing the charter school on probation.

According to Massachusetts regulations, at the discretion of the state board of education, charter schools may be required to submit additional information other than that specifically required by regulation.

Massachusetts regulations allow the state board of education to place a charter school on probation, rather than revoke its charter, in order to allow for the implementation of a remedial plan approved by the board. If after 60 days, or such longer period as the board may specify, said plan is unsuccessful in remedying the problem or alleviating the causes of the probation, regulations allow the board to summarily revoke the charter.

Massachusetts regulations allow the state department of education to impose certain conditions on a school's charter for violations of law or failure to comply with the terms of the school's charter.

Massachusetts regulations allow the state board of education to withhold payments to any charter school placed on probation or whose charter has been suspended, revoked, or not renewed or that has failed to comply with conditions imposed by law or regulation.

16

Michigan

While Michigan law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter as provided in the model law, statute requires the state board of education to submit an annual report to the legislature, including detailed outcome data for each charter school (attendance statistics, dropout rate, aggregate assessment test scores) as well as financial stability and number of, and comments on, supervisory visits by the authorizing body. Although not required by statute, this information is collected through and reviewed by authorizers.

Michigan law requires an annual financial audit to be completed for each school..

Michigan law requires each authorizer to monitor their charter schools for both outcome performance and compliance with applicable laws and allows authorizers to take corrective actions. However, statute does not require that authorizers notify schools of perceived problems and provide them with opportunities to remedy such problems.

12

Minnesota

The state department of education collects student outcome data on the state assessments for all school districts and charter schools. As such data is publicly available, the state does not require authorizers to collect it.

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

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

While the law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter as provided in the model law, statute requires charter schools to publish a fairly detailed annual report covering enrollment, student attrition, governance, staffing, finances, academic performance, innovative practices, and future plans. It requires this report to be distributed to its authorizer, school employees, and parents as well as posted on the schools’ websites.

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

8

Mississippi

Statute requires that the state authorizer collect and analyze data to support ongoing evaluation according to the performance framework in the charter contract, including financial accountability.

State law provides the state authorizer with specific authority to conduct oversight activities needed to fulfill its responsibilities.

As part of its annual report to the legislature, the law requires the state authorizer to publish and provide a performance report for each charter school it oversees in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. The law provides that report must be made available to the public at the same time as it is submitted to the legislature. The law allows the state authorizer to require each charter school it oversees to submit an annual report to assist the authorizer in gathering complete information about each school, consistent with the performance framework. Statute requires the state authorizer to notify their schools of any perceived problems and provide them with reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy the problem.

Statute allows the state authorizer to take appropriate corrective actions short of revocation as needed.

16

Missouri

Missouri law requires that, upon approving an application, the authorizer must create and submit to the state board of education a monitoring plan under which they will evaluate the academic performance of students enrolled in each charter school.

The law requires sponsors to annually review the charter school's compliance with statutory standards including: participation in the statewide system of assessments; assurances for the completion and distribution of an annual report card; the collection of baseline data during the first three years of operation to determine the longitudinal success of the charter school; a method to measure pupil progress toward the pupil academic standards adopted by the state board of education; and publication of each charter school's annual performance report.

The law requires charter schools to have a certified public accountant conduct an annual audit, submit an annual financial report, and use practices consistent with the Missouri Financial Accounting Manual.

According to the law, a sponsor's intervention policies shall give schools clear, adequate, evidence-based, and timely notice of contract violations or performance deficiencies and mandate intervention based upon findings of the state board of education of the following: the charter school provides a high school program which fails to maintain a graduation rate of at least seventy percent in three of the last four school years unless the school has dropout recovery as its mission; the charter school's annual performance report results are below the district's annual performance report results 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; and the charter school is identified as a persistently lowest achieving school by the department of elementary and secondary education.

The law requires an authorizer to take all reasonable steps to confirm that each charter school authorized by it is in material compliance with all of its obligations under its charter and the law. The law requires a charter school to provide enough information for them to make this analysis.

Under Missouri law, charter schools must present annual school report cards that include comprehensive measures of student progress to the state department of education and disseminated by the state annually.

By October 1 of each year, the law requires the sponsor of each charter school to review the information submitted on the report required by state law to identify charter schools experiencing financial stress. The law authorizes the state department of elementary and secondary education to obtain such additional information from a charter school as may be necessary to determine the financial condition of the charter school. Annually, the law requires the department of education to provide a listing of charter schools identified as experiencing financial stress to the governor, speaker of the house of representatives, and president pro tempore of the senate

According to the law, a sponsor shall notify by November first the governing board of the charter school identified as experiencing financial stress. Upon receiving the notification, the governing board shall develop, or cause to have developed, and shall approve a budget and education plan on forms provided by the sponsor. The budget and education plan shall be submitted to the sponsor, signed by the officers of the charter school, within forty-five calendar days of notification that the charter school has been identified as experiencing financial stress. Minimally, the budget and education plan shall: give assurances that adequate educational services to students of the charter school shall continue uninterrupted for the remainder of the current school year and that the charter school can provide the minimum number of school days and hours required by state law; outline a procedure to be followed by the charter school to report to charter school patrons about the financial condition of the charter school; and detail the expenditure reduction measures, revenue increases, or other actions to be taken by the charter school to address its condition of financial stress.

According to the law, upon receipt and following review of any budget and education plan, the sponsor may make suggestions to improve the plan. Nothing in state law shall exempt a charter school from submitting a budget and education plan to the sponsor following each such notification that a charter school has been identified as experiencing financial stress, except that the sponsor may permit a charter school's governing board to make amendments to or update a budget and education plan previously submitted to the sponsor.

The law allows the department to withhold any payment of financial aid otherwise due to the charter school.

The law allows authorizers to place a school on probation to allow implementation of a remedial plan, which may require a change in methodology or leadership or both. If unsuccessful, the law allows the authorizer to revoke the charter.

12

Nevada

The law requires authorizers to ensure the collection, analysis, and reporting of all data from the results of pupils enrolled in the charter school on statewide examinations to determine whether the charter school is meeting the performance indicators, measures, and metrics for the achievement and proficiency of pupils as set forth in the performance framework for the charter school.

Nevada law requires a charter school to submit an annual budget report to its authorizer, the state superintendent of public instruction, and the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly. The law provides that a governing body of a charter school must cause the charter school to be audited on an annual basis.

The law requires that all authorizers must prepare an annual public report of accountability, including provisions required by law and the state department of education.

Statute explicitly states that authorizers must monitor their schools.

The law requires authorizers to notify schools of problems and ask them to remedy them (or at least provide a summary of how they are planning on remedying them) by a certain date.

The law allows authorizers to proceed with consequences or sanctions or both if problems are found and not resolved.

16

New Hampshire

New Hampshire law requires each charter school’s board of trustees to report to their authorizer at least quarterly, for public information purposes, the progress of achieving the charter’s stated goals and their finances.

New Hampshire law requires all charter schools to complete an annual financial audit and submit the result to the state board (similar to all school districts). In addition, the law requires that charter schools be subject to a first year program audit by the state department of education or its agent and to a program audit by the state department of education at least once every three years thereafter.

Statute also includes many monitoring responsibilities for authorizers. Statute requires the state board to give notice of any concerns and allows them to require the implementation of a remedial plan and to place schools on probationary status for up to one year.

12

New Jersey

The law requires charter schools to provide annual performance, financial, and operational data to the local board of education, county superintendent of schools, and the state commissioner. The law also requires that these reports be made available to the parents or guardians of enrolled students. State rules require the state commissioner to prescribe the format of these reports and requires that they include evidence of how the school is achieving the mission, goals, and objectives of its charter as measured against the performance framework and evidence of financial compliance using generally accepted accounting principles.

Based in part on the annual performance reports prepared by charter schools, the law requires the authorizer to annually assess whether each charter school is meeting the goals of its charter.

New Jersey law empowers the state commissioner to place a charter school on probationary status for an appropriate time period to allow implementation of a remedial plan upon a finding that the school is not operating in compliance with its charter, applicable statutes, or regulations.

12

New Mexico

The law requires authorizers to collect, analyze, and report all data in accordance with the performance frameworks set forth in their approved charter contracts with schools and to include this information in annual performance reports for each charter school they oversee submitted to the state public education department.

The law requires charter schools to adhere to the same reporting requirements as traditional public schools, including quarterly financial reports, an annual outside audit, and 40-, 60-, and 120-day student counts. The law also requires charter schools receiving local mill levy tax dollars to report their proposed and actual capital expenditures.

The law requires authorizers to monitor the fiscal, overall governance, student performance, and legal compliance of the charter schools they oversee, including reviewing the data provided by the charter school to support ongoing evaluation according to the charter contract.

The law allows authorizers to conduct or require oversight activities that allow the authorizer to fulfill its responsibilities under the Charter Schools Act, including conducting appropriate inquires and investigations provided that the authorizer complies with the provisions of the Charter Schools Act and the terms of the charter contract and does not unduly inhibit the autonomy granted to the charter schools that it governs.

As part of its performance review of a charter school, the law requires authorizers to visit a charter school under its authority at least once annually to provide technical assistance to the charter school and to determine the status of the charter school and the progress of the charter school toward the performance framework goals in its charter contract.

If, based on the performance review conducted by the authorizer, a charter school's fiscal, overall governance, student performance, or legal compliance appears unsatisfactory, the law requires the authorizer to promptly notify the governing body of the charter school of the unsatisfactory review and provide reasonable opportunity for the governing body to remedy the problem. However, if the unsatisfactory review warrants revocation, the law provides that the revocation procedures set forth in state law shall apply.

The law allows an authorizer to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions, as long as such sanctions do not constitute revocation, in response to the unsatisfactory review. The law provides that such actions or sanctions by the authorizer may include requiring a governing body to develop and execute a corrective action plan with the authorizer that sets forth time frames for compliance.

16

New York

New York law requires charter schools to submit annual reports and audits to both their authorizer and the State Board of Regents, and to make them publicly available by posting them on their website, though such reports are clearly subject to the state’s Freedom of Information Law and would be requires to be produced upon request. Such reports include academic data, fiscal data, progress toward goals, graduation rates, dropouts, and other variables as outlined in statute.

New York law requires authorizers to provide oversight sufficient to ensure that the charter school is in compliance with all applicable laws and charter provisions, which include performance benchmarks. The state education department and the authorizer have joint oversight authority.

The law allows authorizers to put a school on probation and issue a remedial plan. If the conditions of the plan aren't met, the authorizer may revoke the charter.

In practice, authorizers may provide charter schools with additional opportunities for corrective measures. SUNY, for example, frequently utilizes a corrective action plan for schools that have moderate compliance problems, which is less severe than, and a precursor to, the remedial action plan set forth in the law.

16

North Carolina

State policies require charter schools to administer all state assessments and require the state department of public instruction to compile and publish the disaggregated results for each school and compares each group to the state’s average. North Carolina law requires charter schools to report at least annually to the state board of education the information required by the state board. It also requires charter schools to comply with the reporting requirements established by the state board of education in the Uniform Education Reporting System. However, performance data specific to other charter school goals are not annually collected, analyzed, and reported by the authorizer.

North Carolina law provides that charter schools are subject to the financial audits, the audit procedures, and the audit requirements adopted by the state board of education for charter schools, which may include the requirements of the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act.

North Carolina law and state board policies allows the state board of education to review the operations of each charter school annually to ensure that the school is meeting the expected academic, financial, and governance standards.

State board policies provide additional authorizer authority to conduct or require oversight activities and detailed processes dealing with any financial or governance noncompliance issues, including authorizer notification to the schools of perceived problems along with opportunities to remedy such problems and the ability for the authorizer to take appropriate corrective actions.

12

Ohio

Ohio law requires the state auditor to conduct financial audits of each school. It also requires authorizers to annually report the academic and fiscal performance of each of its schools to the state department of education and to parents.

Ohio law requires the state department of education to issue an annual report card to each school, which is to include both financial and academic data. Furthermore, state law requires each school to participate in the statewide management information system.

Under Ohio law, a prospective charter authorizer must include in its application its ability to monitor and conduct oversight authority.

Ohio law allows an authorizer to place a school on probation with the assurance of the governing body that it will correct any deficiencies.

The law requires the charter contract to specify the duties of the authorizer, which include its ability to intervene in the school's operation to correct problems and declare the school to be on probationary status if deemed necessary. The law provides that a school may only be placed on probation with the assurance of the governing body that it will correct any deficiencies.

8

Oklahoma

Oklahoma law includes a small number of the elements of the model law's provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. Oklahoma law requires each charter school to annually file a report with the Office of Accountability. It provides that this report must include such information as requested by the Office of Accountability, including but not limited to information on enrollment, testing, curriculum, finances and employees.

The law requires charter schools to be subject to the same reporting requirements, financial audits, audit procedures, and audit requirements as the school district.

However, it doesn’t require authorizers to collect and analyze student outcome data at least annually, provide authorizers the authority to conduct or require oversight activities, require authorizers to publish annual school performance reports, require authorizers to notify their schools of perceived problems and give schools opportunities to remedy such problems, and provide authorizers the authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

4

Oregon

Oregon law requires each authorizer or authorizer’s designee to visit the charter school at least annually to review the school’s compliance with the terms of its charter.

The law requires charter schools to have sound financial management systems, including a budget and accounting system that is compatible with the authorizing district and meets requirements of the uniform budget and accounting system adopted by the state board of education. It also requires each charter school to have an annual financial audit prepared in accordance with the Municipal Audit Law, which must be submitted to the authorizer, the state board of education, and the state department of education.

Oregon law requires each public charter school to report to its authorizer and the state board of education at least annually on the performance of the school and its student, and on the school’s legal compliance.

If the grounds for termination of a charter contract include failure to maintain a sound financial management system, the law allows the authorizer and the school o agree to develop a plan to correct deficiencies. The law allows the authorizer to withhold up to 50 percent of the moneys owed to the public charter school while the public charter school is on the plan to correct deficiencies unless the withholding would create an undue hardship, as determined pursuant to rules of the state board of education.

8

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania law requires authorizers to annually assess whether each charter school is meeting the goals of its charter and conduct a comprehensive review prior to granting a five-year renewal.

The law requires charter schools to complete an annual financial audit.

As authorizer, the law specifies that it has ongoing access to the records and facilities of the charter school to ensure compliance.

The law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract as provided in the model law. Instead, it requires charter schools to participate in the state assessment system and submit annual reports to their local school board and the state secretary of education using a form prescribed by the secretary for charter schools. It requires authorizers to annually review such assessment data and other performance indicators to ensure compliance with academic standards and assessment.

8

Rhode Island

Rhode Island law and regulations require charter schools to provide a yearly report to parents, the community, the local school committee, and the state commissioner of education, which indicates the progress made by the charter school during the previous year in meeting the charter objectives.

Regulations give the state commissioner of education the responsibility and authority to conduct or require oversight activities.

Regulations provide that the state commissioner of education can institute charter revocation proceedings, during which the commissioner notifies the school in writing of the facts and issues that justify a revocation and offers the school a reasonable length of time to attain compliance. Regulations allow the commissioner to place schools on probation for a specified period of time in lieu of revocation.

Rhode Island law requires all charter schools to adhere to financial record keeping, reporting, auditing requirements, and procedures in the same manner as required of local public school districts and in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations.

Rhode Island law requires all charter schools to continuously monitor their financial operations by tracking actual versus budgeted revenue and expense.

Rhode Island law allows individuals or groups to complain to a charter school's governing body concerning any claimed violation of the provisions of the charter law by the school. If, after presenting their complaint to the governing body, the individuals or groups believe their complaint has not been adequately addressed, the law allows them to submit their complaint to the state commissioner of elementary and secondary education who must hear and decide the issue pursuant to state law.

16

South Carolina

South Carolina law requires that charter schools must report annually on performance data and other information to their authorizer and to the state department of education. South Carolina law requires authorizers to annually evaluate the progress schools make towards the pupil achievement standards identified in the charter application.

Under the law, charter schools must adhere to the accounting, auditing, and reporting procedures that are applicable to traditional public schools in South Carolina.

South Carolina law requires authorizers to conduct or require oversight activities that enable them to fulfill their responsibilities including conducting appropriate inquiries and investigations, but only if those activities are consistent with the intent of the state’s charter law, adhere to the terms of the charter contract, and do not unduly inhibit the autonomy granted to public charter schools.

South Carolina law requires authorizers to collect an annual report from each of their authorized schools and submit them to the South Carolina Department of Education.

The law requires an authorizer to notify a charter school of perceived problems if the school’s performance or legal compliance appears to be unsatisfactory and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy the problem, unless the problem warrants revocation and revocation timeframes apply.

It also requires an authorizer to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation in response to apparent deficiencies in charter school performance or legal compliance. These actions or sanctions may include requiring a school to develop and execute a correction action plan within a specified timeframe.

16

Tennessee

Tennessee law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes.

Tennessee law requires a charter school to make at least an annual progress report to its authorizer and the state commissioner of education. The law requires the report to contain at least the following information: the progress of the school towards achieving the goals outlined in its charter; the same information required in the reports prepared by local boards of education pursuant to state laws, rules and regulations; and financial records of the school, including revenues and expenditures.

The law requires each charter school to provide in its annual report a detailed accounting, including the amounts and sources, of funds other than those received from its authorizer.

Tennessee law requires a charter school to conduct an annual audit of its accounts and records, including internal school activity and cafeteria funds.

Tennessee law requires a public charter school to maintain its accounts and records in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles and in conformance with the uniform chart of accounts and accounting requirements prescribed by the comptroller of the treasury. A school must prepare and publish an annual financial report that encompasses all funds and includes the audited financial statements of the charter school.

Tennessee law allows the state comptroller of the treasury to audit any books and records, including internal school activity and cafeteria funds, of any charter school created under this chapter and by virtue of the statutes of this state when the audit is deemed necessary or appropriate by the comptroller of the treasury. The state comptroller of the treasury must have the full cooperation of officials of the charter school in the performance of the audit or audits.

However, Tennessee law doesn’t require authorizers to collect and analyze student outcome data at least annually, provide authorizers the authority to conduct or require oversight activities, require authorizers to publish annual school performance reports, require authorizers to notify their schools of perceived problems and give schools opportunities to remedy such problems, and provide authorizers the authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

4

Texas

Like school districts, charters are subject to Chapter 39 of the Education Code, which includes assessment of academic skills, performance indicators, accreditation status, and accreditation sanctions. The data collected is made public through reports on the state education agency’s website through the Academic Excellence indicator system.

The Commissioner of Education, through the Texas Education Agency (TEA), monitors charter school student outcome data annually through the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS). The TEA also monitors annually charter school financial stability through the Charter School Financial Rating System of Texas (FIRST). AEIS reports and FIRST ratings are released to the public by TEA. Charter schools are required to distribute their annual campus report cards to parents.

Texas law requires all charters to ensure that an annual audit of financial and programmatic operations is conducted. Further, the law allows the state commissioner and the TEA to audit the records of an open-enrollment charter school, a charter holder, and a management company. It provides that the state commissioner audit must be limited to matters directly related to the management or operation of an open-enrollment charter school, including any financial and administrative records.

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 state law or state agency rule. 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.

The law requires the state commissioner of education to take certain actions if an open-enrollment school commits a material violation of the school's charter, fails to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management or fails to comply with the state’s charter school law or another applicable rule or law. The law allows the state commissioner to temporarily withhold funding, suspend the authority of an open-enrollment charter school to operate, or take any other reasonable action the commissioner determines necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of students enrolled at the school based on evidence that conditions at the school present a danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students.

Not later than the third business day after the date the state commissioner acts, he or she must provide the charter holder an opportunity for a hearing. If the state commissioner takes such an action, the law specifies that the open-enrollment charter school may not receive funding and may not resume operating until a determination is made that the conditions at the school do not present a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students despite initial evidence or the conditions at the school that presented a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students have been corrected.

In addition, the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System includes a progressive intervention system for charter schools rated Academically Unacceptable for two or more school years. The progressive intervention system begins with a technical assistance team and ends with mandatory closure of the school.

12

Utah

Utah law requires each authorizer to visit its charter schools at least once during their first and fifth years of operation, provide a written report to each school after each visit, and establish a process for reviewing every charter school once every five years. It also requires local school board and higher education institution authorizers to annually review and evaluate the performance of charter schools and hold them accountable for performance.

For state-chartered schools, regulations require an accountability review process including the creation of charter school accountability plans, annual review of student achievement, quarterly review of financial data, annual site visits or random audits, and other forms of regular ongoing oversight.

The law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports. However, Utah law requires charter schools to file the same annual reports required of other public schools in the state, including an annual financial audit report filed with the state auditor. These reports are public.

The law requires an authorizer to notify a charter school’s governing board in writing of any noncompliance deficiencies and provide reasonable opportunity to remedy the deficiency. If the school does not remedy the deficiency within the established timeline, the law permits the authorizer to remove a school director or finance officer, remove governing board members, appoint an interim director or mentor to work with the charter school, or terminate the charter. The state regulations also specify sanctions short of revocation that the state charter board may exercise.

12

Virginia

Virginia law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. However, Virginia law requires authorizers to submit annual evaluations of any public charter schools to the state board of education. It also requires authorizers to submit annually to the state board a comparison of the performance of public charter school students and students enrolled in the regular schools of such relevant school division and a report of the number of students enrolled in such public charter schools at the end of the school year.

4

Washington

Statute requires that authorizers collect and analyze data to support ongoing evaluation according to the performance framework in the charter contract, including financial accountability.

State law provides authorizers with specific authority to conduct oversight activities needed to fulfill its responsibilities.

State law requires each authorizer to submit an annual report to the state board of education that includes the academic and financial performance of all their operating charter schools; however, they are not specifically required to produce an annual school performance report for each school.

Statute requires authorizers to notify their schools of any perceived problems and provide them with reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy the problem.

Statute allows authorizers to take appropriate corrective actions short of revocation as needed.

12

Wisconsin

Wisconsin law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. Wisconsin law requires that the charter petition specify the manner in which annual financial audits will be performed. However, it doesn’t require authorizers to collect and analyze student outcome data at least annually, provide authorizers the authority to conduct or require oversight activities, require authorizers to publish annual school performance reports, require authorizers to notify their schools of perceived problems and give schools opportunities to remedy such problems, and provide authorizers the authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation.

4

Wyoming

Wyoming law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes. However, Wyoming law requires charter applicants to explain in their application "the manner in which an annual audit of the financial and programmatic operations of each charter school … is to be conducted.”

Wyoming law also requires each district authorizer to report annually to the state board of education on each charter school operating within the district. The law specifies that the report must include achievement data and fiscal reports in the format required by the state, charter compliance information, an annual accreditation report, and a list of any complaints received by or about the charter school and the resolution of those complaints. These reports are public.
While the law requires authorizers to report data, it does not address how authorizers are to collect and analyze student outcome data each year and does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract.

The charter law itself also does not empower authorizers to take corrective actions short of revocation to enforce the charter contract. Absent waivers approved by the state, however, charter schools are subject to the same accreditation requirements and reporting as other public schools in the district. These requirements provide that the district is responsible for all corrective actions required for accreditation purposes, but accreditation is substantively different from charter performance accountability.

4