Measuring Up to the Model



weight: 2 | possible total: 8

10. Educational Service Providers (ESPs) Allowed

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

10B. The charter application requires 1) performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, including documentation of academic achievement and (if applicable) school management success; and 2) explanation and evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

10C. A performance contract is required between the independent public charter school board and the ESP, setting forth material terms including but not limited to: performance evaluation measures; methods of contract oversight and enforcement by the charter school board; compensation structure and all fees to be paid to the ESP; and conditions for contract renewal and termination.

10D. The material terms of the ESP performance contract must be approved by the authorizer prior to charter approval.

10E. School governing boards operating as entities completely independent of any educational service provider (e.g., must retain independent oversight authority of their charter schools, and cannot give away their authority via contract).

10F. Existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities are required to be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

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

State

Charter Law Description

Score

Alaska

Alaska law includes none of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

0

Arizona

Arizona law is silent regarding any educational service provider arrangements, with no explicit provisions regarding performance data, contracts, authorizer approval, school governing board independence, and conflict of interests. Thus, there is nothing in law that prevents schools from contracting with educational service providers to operate a school nor prevents some educational service providers from directly applying to run a charter school.

ASBCS policies require those applying to this board to offer details regarding any ESP in their application, including: services to be provided; the ESP’s roles and responsibilities in relation to the applicant, and the school’s management and governing board; performance expectations for the ESP; background information on the ESP including relevant performance data for other schools that the ESP has managed; and the actual service agreement as executed between the applicant and the ESP or a template version if not yet executed. However, these requirements aren’t applicable to local school board and higher educational authorizers.

2

Arkansas

Arkansas law is silent regarding these arrangements. There is nothing explicit in law that prevents schools from contracting with educational service providers to operate a school nor guides the authorizer in their review of such provisions.

0

California

California law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. California law permits education service providers to operate charter schools. However, there are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers, performance contracts between the school and service provider, authorizer approval of contracts, school governing boards operating completely independent of any educational service provider, and conflicts of interest.

2

Colorado

Colorado law contains all of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

8

Connecticut

Connecticut law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

Connecticut law allows charter school boards to contract with, or enter into, agreements for purposes of administrative or other support services, transportation, plant services, and leasing facilities or equipment. But there are no provisions requiring educational service provider information within the charter application, requiring authorizer approval of any performance contracts between schools and educational service providers, or ensuring school governing boards operate as entities legally and fiscally independent of any educational service provider.

Connecticut law includes a definition of charter management organizations and requires the state board to adopt regulations that prohibit a charter school and any affiliated charter management organization from sharing board members with other charter schools and such organizations, require the disclosure of sharing management personnel, and prohibit unsecured, non-interest bearing transfers of state and federal funds between charter schools and from charter schools to charter management organizations.

2

Delaware

Delaware law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. Delaware law allows contracting with all types of educational service providers but there are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers, performance contracts between the school and service provider, authorizer approval of contracts, school governing boards operating completely independent of any educational service provider, and conflicts of interest.

2

District of Columbia

The law permits educational service providers to operate charter schools under contract with a charter school board and provides that school governing boards operate as entities completely independent of any educational service provider.
However, there are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers, performance contracts between the school and service provider, authorizer approval of contracts, and conflicts of interest.

While the law doesn’t contain such items, the PCSB’s charter application requires performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, including documentation of academic achievement and (if applicable) school management success and explanation and evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools, the PCSB reviews any contract between a school and a provider over $25,000, and the PCSB’s application requires that existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities are required to be disclosed and explained.

4

Florida

Florida law permits charter schools to contract with education service providers.

State board regulations require the use of a model charter application form, which requires details on any proposed ESP agreements, including services, performance evaluation measures, fee structure, renewal and termination provisions, and how the relationship with the ESP will further the school’s mission. Regulations also require the application to detail why the ESP was selected, what due diligence efforts were conducted to inform the selection, a summary of the ESP’s history, the background and experience of senior management, and student and financial performance data from other schools using this ESP.

The new model charter contract form requires the inclusion of any ESP agreement, and any changes to the ESP agreement require charter contract modification and approval.

Regulations require the application to explain how the charter school’s governing board will ensure an “arm’s length,” performance-based relationship between the governing board and the ESP. In addition, state law provides that an employee of the charter school, or his or her spouse, or an employee of a charter management organization, or his or her spouse, may not be a member of the governing board of the charter school.

8

Georgia

Georgia law explicitly allows charter schools to contract with educational services providers. Within the application, it requires applicants to submit any intended contracts for the provision of educational management services and a disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest. However, state law and regulations do not require applicants to detail performance data for such ESPs, do not require essential elements of a performance contract with an ESP, and do not explicitly require charter boards to be operating completely independent of any ESPs.

4

Hawaii

Hawaii law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

The law allows all types of educational service providers to operate schools.

The law requires the charter application to detail a governance structure that incorporates a conflict of interest policy, but does not require that existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

The law does not require educational service provider information within the charter application, does not require authorizer approval of any performance contracts between schools and educational service providers, or does not ensure that school governing boards operate as entities legally and fiscally independent of any educational service provider.

2

Idaho

Idaho law allows a charter school board to legally contract with for-profit entities “for the provision of products or services that aid in the operation of the school.”

The law prevents many (but not all) conflicts of interest by prohibiting any member of a charter school board of directors from benefiting financially, whether directly or indirectly, from a contractual relationship with the school. Idaho law prohibits charter school board members, as public officers, from having an interest in any contract entered into by the board. The law generally prohibits charter school contracts from being awarded to spouses of charter school board members. The law does not require the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in the charter application, as recommended in the model law.

The law does not include application requirements for educational service providers, does not require a clear performance contract between charter schools and service providers, does not require contracts with providers to be approved by authorizers, and does not require school governing boards to operate independent of providers.

2

Illinois

Illinois law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. Under Illinois law, a charter school may negotiate and contract with a for profit or nonprofit private entity for the use of a school building and grounds or any other real property or facilities that the charter school desires to use or convert for use as a charter school site, the operation and maintenance thereof, and the provision of any service, activity, or undertaking that the charter school is required to perform in order to carry out the terms of its charter. However, there are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers, authorizer approval of contracts, school governing boards operating completely independent of any educational service provider, and conflicts of interest.

2

Indiana

Indiana law includes all of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

8

Iowa

Iowa law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, Iowa law indicates that a charter school may enter into contracts.

2

Kansas

Kansas law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, Kansas law states that an “educational services contractor” may petition to establish a charter school. This means that such a provider could receive a direct charter contract with the local school board (not the charter school’s board).

2

Louisiana

State board rule requires schools that plan to contract with an educational service provider (ESP) to include the details of such contracts in their charter applications. Such details must include performance data for current or past schools operated by the ESP, evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth, the material terms of the performance contract, and any existing or potential conflicts of interest. They also require charter school boards to operate legally and fiscally independent of any ESP.

8

Maine

Maine statute allows charter school governing boards for virtual charter schools to enter into contracts with educational service providers for education design, implementation, or comprehensive management of the virtual public charter school program. However, it only allows charter school governing boards for brick and mortar charter schools to enter into contracts with educational service providers for a limited scope of education or management services.

Maine law requires the charter application to contain details regarding past performance data of any service provider and significant details regarding the terms of the proposed contract with the service provider.

The law also requires the application to contain details about any potential conflict of interests between the charter school governing board and the service provider and a statement of assurance that the two entities are legally and operationally independent of each other.

Maine rules require a public charter school’s governing board, leaders, and managers to be legally and operationally independent from any education service provider. In determining whether boards, leaders, and managers are independent of the service provider, the rules require an authorizer to consider all factors, including but not limited to: whether the charter school’s governing board is selected by, or includes members who are employees of, the education service provider; whether the charter school has an independent attorney, accountant, and audit firm that works for the charter school and not the education service provider; whether the contract between the charter school and the education service provider was negotiated at “arms length,” clearly describes each party’s rights and responsibilities, and specifies reasonable and feasible terms under which either party may terminate the contract; whether the fee to be paid by the charter school to the education service provider is reasonable for the type of services provided; and whether any other agreements, e.g., loans or leases between the charter school and the education service provider are fair and reasonable, documented appropriately, align with market rates, and include terms that will not change if the contract is terminated.

6

Maryland

Maryland law includes none of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, in practice, the state allows all types of educational service providers to operate all or parts of charter schools.

0

Massachusetts

Massachusetts law allows all types of educational service providers, requires contracts between boards and providers, and has provisions regarding conflicts of interest.

The law requires applications submitted by proven providers (i.e., successful charter operators) to demonstrate the performance of their successful schools they propose to replicate, including academic and operational performance, and board capacity to operate additional schools.

8

Michigan

Michigan’s statutes grant the board of a charter school the ability to enter into binding legal agreements with persons or entities as necessary for the operation, management, financing, and maintenance of the charter schools.

The law requires authorizers to review – and allows them to disapprove – any agreement between a charter school and an educational management company before such an agreement is final and valid. The law provides that disapproval may only occur if the agreement is contrary to the contract or applicable law.

Statutes prohibit specifically identified family relations between members of the board of directors and officers and members of any educational management company involved in the operation of the school (with such provisions detailed in charter contract). However, it does not require existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

The law requires authorizers to ensure that charter school governing boards operate independently of any educational management organization.

The law does not require the charter application to provide performance data for all current and past schools operated by the provider and an explanation and evidence of the provider’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

6

Minnesota

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

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

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

Minnesota law requires charter schools’ annual audits to include a copy of all charter school agreements for corporate management services.

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

6

Mississippi

The law provides that an educational service provider (ESP) that provides comprehensive management for a charter school must be a nonprofit education organization. For those schools proposing to use such ESPs, state law requires them to include in their charter application evidence of the ESP’s success in serving student populations similar to their targeted population and evidence of past performance and their capacity for growth.

Within their application, statute requires them to provide a term sheet setting forth the proposed duration of the service contract, including things like the roles and responsibilities of the school board and the service provider, the scope of services, the performance evaluation measures and timelines, the compensation structure, the methods of contract oversight and performance, and the conditions for renewal and termination of the contract.

Statute provides that school governing boards operate as entities completely independent of any educational service provider. Statute also requires applications to disclose and explain any existing or potential conflicts of interest between the charter school board and the proposed service provider.

6

Missouri

Missouri law allows contracting with all types of educational service providers.

In the case of a proposed charter school that intends to contract with an education service provider for substantial educational services or management services, the law requires the charter school applicant to:

• Provide evidence of the education service provider's success in serving student populations similar to the targeted population, including demonstrated academic achievement as well as successful management of nonacademic school functions, if applicable;
• Provide a term sheet setting forth the proposed duration of the service contract; roles and responsibilities of the governing board, the school staff, and the service provider; scope of services and resources to be provided by the service provider; performance evaluation measures and time lines; compensation structure, including clear identification of all fees to be paid to the service provider; methods of contract oversight and enforcement; investment disclosure; and conditions for renewal and termination of the contract;
• Disclose any known conflicts of interest between the school governing board and proposed service provider or any affiliated business entities;
• Disclose and explain any termination or nonrenewal of contracts for equivalent services for any other charter school in the United States within the past five years;
• Ensure that the legal counsel for the charter school shall report directly to the charter school's governing board; and
• Provide a process to ensure that the expenditures that the educational service provider intends to bill to the charter school shall receive prior approval of the governing board or its designee.

Missouri law states that charter school governing board members may not have any substantial interest in any entity employed by, or contracting with, the board. It also states that board members cannot be employees of a company that provides substantial services to the charter school and it requires them to meet financial disclosure requirements.

8

Nevada

Nevada laws and regulations contain many of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, the law does not require the charter application to include performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, including documentation of academic achievement and (if applicable) school management success and explanation and evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

6

New Hampshire

New Hampshire law allows charters to contract with outside entities to manage the school and requires them to include the terms of any such outside contract within an addendum in the school’s charter contract, with such terms reviewed and approved by the authorizer.

Statute also specifically requires any conflict of interest between a board of trustee member and any for-profit entity in which a contract is being sought for services to be made public and requires that board member to recuse himself from any issues related to that entity. If not, the law gives the state commissioner of education the authority to void the contact and provides that the board member can be held personally liable to the charter school for any damages caused by such contract.

The law does not require the charter application to include performance data for all current and past schools operated by the educational service provider and an explanation and evidence of the educational service provider’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

6

New Jersey

New Jersey law specifically allows a charter school to be established by a private entity in conjunction with teachers and parents, but the law limits the role of such private entities by providing that the school’s name may not include the name of the private entity, members of the private entity cannot constitute a majority of the board, and the private entity may not realize a net profit from its operation of the school.

Other than the requirement that the charter must specify the extent of the entity’s involvement in the operation of the schools, there are no other provisions related to performance contracts, relationships between educational service providers and charter boards, and authorizer approval of such contracts.

2

New Mexico

New Mexico law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.
State law prohibits a charter school governing body from contracting with a for-profit entity for the management of the charter school.

If a charter school contracts with a third-party provider, the law requires the charter contract to include the criteria and procedures for the authorizer to review the provider's contract and the charter school's financial independence from the provider. It doesn’t require authorizers to approve these contracts and ensure that governing boards operate completely independent of a provider, though.

The law provides that a person shall not serve as a member of a governing body of a charter school if the person or an immediate family member of the person is an owner, agent of, contractor with or otherwise has a financial interest in a for-profit or nonprofit entity with which the charter school contracts directly, for professional services, goods or facilities. It doesn’t require existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities to be disclosed and explained in the charter application, though.

There are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers and performance contracts between the school and service provider.

2

New York

For any school that was or will be approved under the first 200 charters issued, New York law allows all types of educational service providers to operate all or parts of charter schools. But for any schools approved using one of the 260 new charters available, the law does not allow for-profit entities to apply for a charter or to manage any schools.

New York law requires applicants seeking to partner with for-profit providers to specify the extent of their participation in the management and operation of the school within the charter application, but does not require that performance record of any provider and an explanation of the provider’s capacity for growth be included and that the material terms of the contract be approved.

Statute states that the charter school board shall have final authority for policy and operational decisions of the schools and may only delegate decision-making authority to officers and employees of the school in accordance with the provisions of the charter.

Statute requires strict conflict of interest provisions, including a prohibition on hiring for-profit entities in which board members or employees have a substantial interest. It also requires that a code of conduct policy be included in charter applications and that the proposed founding board members submit disclosure documents and handle conflicts in accordance with the approved code.

4

North Carolina

North Carolina law is silent regarding these arrangements, but the state attorney general has ruled that all types of educational service providers operate all or parts of charter schools.

Although this information is not counted within this analysis (since these provisions are not codified in state law or state board policy), the application requires student performance, governance performance, and financial data from other schools managed by the management company and requires that the applicant must demonstrate how the management company is a good fit for the targeted student population. It requires that the proposed management agreement must be provided with the application (and approved by the authorizer), with such agreement including at least the measureable objectives whereby the charter school board can evaluate annually the performance of the management company, and if necessary, terminate the contract without significant obstacles.

The application must also discuss how the charter school board will govern the school independently of the management company and include a description of the relationship that exists between the charter school employees and the management organization. Elsewhere in the application, the applicant must describe the board’s ethical standards and procedures for identifying and addressing conflicts of interest, including the identification of any existing relationships that could pose actual or perceived conflicts if the application was approved and steps that the board will take to avoid any actual conflicts and to mitigate perceived conflicts.

Furthermore, the state board’s charter contract contains the following provisions: no member of the governing board shall be an employee of a company that provides substantial services to the charter school; the members of the nonprofit board of directors affirm that they will adhere to a duly adopted conflict of interest policy, including provisions related to nepotism and consistent with the provisions of this section; the nonprofit shall have ultimate responsibility for employment, management, dismissal and discipline of its employees and in no event shall the governing board delegate or assign its responsibility for fulfilling terms of this charter; the nonprofit shall not enter into or terminate an agreement for comprehensive management services without the prior, explicit approval of the state board; the nonprofit shall comply with all state board requests regarding the management agreement that are reasonably related to compliance with all provisions of this charter agreement and the charter school statute.

2

Ohio

Ohio law allows charter schools to contract with all types of educational service providers.

It requires all virtual charter schools, including those contracting with an educational service provider, to be approved by an authorizer and the state superintendent of public instruction. In making a decision about whether to approve a virtual charter school application, it requires the state superintendent to consider rules prescribed by the state board of education. Among other things, it requires these rules to include the educational service provider’s previous record for student performance. However, there aren’t similar requirements for brick-and-mortar schools.

Although state law does not require existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities be disclosed and explained in the charter application, it does prohibit community school governing board members from being employed by an authorizer or operator.

The law does not include other provisions related to performance contracts and authorizer approval of such contracts.

4

Oklahoma

Oklahoma law is silent regarding these arrangements. It does provide that the governing body of a charter school is subject to the same conflicts of interest requirements as a member of the local school board, but these provisions are not specific to potential conflicts with educational service providers.

0

Oregon

Oregon law provides that if a charter school chooses to contract with a for-profit management organization, the school must maintain a right of control over the contractor and provide procedural safeguards to affected members of the public in relation to those aspects of the school’s operations that constitute the governmental function of providing a public education. The law does not contain similar requirements for schools that contract with non-profit providers.

As part of the criteria that local school boards must use to evaluate a proposal, the law requires them to examine the prior history, if any, of the applicant in operating a public charter school or in providing educational services.

The law provides some conflict-of-interest provisions for virtual charter schools, but these do not apply to the rest of Oregon’s charter schools.

The law does not require the authorizer to approve the material terms of the school’s performance contract with an educational service provider prior to charter approval.

4

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania law is silent regarding educational service providers, and thus there is no explicit statutes requiring that authorizers review and approve educational service provider arrangements and that charter school boards be independent of educational service providers. However, case law exists which requires a fully executed management agreement to be submitted with an application if the charter school is going to use a management company.

The law's only conflict of interest provision states that an administrator in a school cannot receive compensation from a company that provides management or other services to another charter school. In addition, statute makes it clear that any administrator and trustee are public officials and subject to ethics standards and financial disclosure.

4

Rhode Island

Rhode Island law allows charter boards to contract directly with third parties for the purchase of books, instructional materials, and any other goods and services which are not being provided by the sending school districts. Statute also requires that information be placed in charter applications regarding any support services the school plans to obtain directly from third parties and under what terms and conditions those services are to be provided, to the extent known. Rhode Island law prohibits charter schools from contracting with for-profit management organizations.

Regulations require the following within charter application: evidence of the educational service provider’s success in serving students; terms of the service contract including the roles, responsibilities of the governing board, school staff, and the service provider; performance evaluation and enforcement measures; compensation structure and fees; methods of contract oversight; and conditions for renewal.

Regulations state that no charter school board can enter into a contract that would have the effect of reducing the board’s ultimate responsibility for the operation of the school.

6

South Carolina

South Carolina law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

South Carolina law allows a charter school board to contract for services, but does not require educational service provider information within the charter application, does not require authorizer approval of any performance contracts between schools and educational service providers, does not ensure that school governing boards operate as entities legally and fiscally independent of any educational service provider, and does not require that existing and potential conflicts of interest be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

2

Tennessee

Tennessee law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. Tennessee law allows the governing board to enter into contracts, but statute contains no provisions regarding the details of any ESP arrangements. In addition, statute specifically prohibits charter governing boards from contracting for the management or operation of the charter school with a for-profit entity.

2

Texas

Texas law allows all types of educational service providers – or “management services companies”- to operate all or parts of charter schools.

Texas law provides that the state commissioner of education may grant a charter for an open-enrollment charter school to an applicant that is: an eligible entity that proposes to operate the charter school program of a charter operator that operates one or more charter schools in another state and with which the eligible entity is affiliated and, as determined by the commissioner in accordance with commissioner rule, has performed at a level of performance comparable to performance under the highest or second highest performance rating category under state law; or an entity that has operated one or more charter schools established under state law and, as determined by the commissioner in accordance with commissioner rule, has performed in the highest or second highest performance rating category under state law.

Texas law requires a performance contract between the independent public charter school board and the service provider

Texas law requires that management services contracts between a charter school and a management services company must be pre-approved by the Texas Education Agency.

The law provides that school governing boards operate as entities completely independent of an educational service provider.

The law also includes conflict of interest provisions, requires that potential conflicts are disclosed and explained in the application, and applies ongoing disclosure requirements. State law prohibits charter schools from accepting loans from management services companies and prohibits a person with a substantial interest in a management company from serving on a charter school board.

All of the above provisions are applicable to open-enrollment charter schools, but not district-authorized charter schools.

4

Utah

Utah law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. The law permits charter schools to contract with all types of educational service providers. However, there are no statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements for educational service providers, performance contracts between the school and service provider, authorizer approval of contracts, and school governing boards operating completely independent of any educational service provider.

Although the law does not directly address potential conflicts of interest between a charter school board and service provider, it does prohibit a charter school officer or relative of a charter school officer from having a financial interest in a contract or other transaction involving the charter school, except for a reasonable contract of employment. This prohibition addresses some but not all conflicts of interest that might arise in the context of service contracts.

2

Virginia

Virginia law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, Virginia law allows a charter school to contract with any third party for the provision of any service activity or undertaking which the school is required to perform in order to carry out the educational program described in its charter.

2

Washington

Washington statute allows for non-profit educational service providers (ESPs) to provide substantial educational services, management services, or both, but specifically states that these must be non-profit entities.

For those schools proposing to use such ESPs, state law requires them to include in their charter application evidence of the ESP’s success in serving student populations similar to their targeted population and evidence of past performance and their capacity for growth.

Within their application, statute requires them to provide a term sheet setting forth the proposed duration of the service contract, including things like the roles and responsibilities of the school board and the service provider, the scope of services, the performance evaluation measures and timelines, the compensation structure, the methods of contract oversight and performance, and the conditions for renewal and termination of the contract.

Statute provides that school governing boards operate as entities completely independent of any educational service provider.

Statute also requires applications to disclose and explain any existing or potential conflicts of interest between the charter school board and the proposed service provider.

6

Wisconsin

Wisconsin law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. Wisconsin law does not directly address educational service providers, but allows a contract with an individual or group to operate a charter school. However, there are no other provisions related to performance contracts, relationships between educational service providers and the charter board, and authorizer approval of such contracts. In addition, the law provides that if the City of Milwaukee contracts with an individual or group to operating for profit to operate a school as a charter school, the charter school is an instrumentality of Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the MPS board must employ all personnel for the charter school.

2

Wyoming

Wyoming law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. However, Wyoming law permits charter schools to contract with any third party for services. The law does not explicitly state the need for a clear, substantive performance contract, but states that no charter school shall enter into a contract with an independent management company without the prior written consent of the district board, and the school district shall be a third-party beneficiary to any management contract approved by the district board.

Wyoming regulations state that charter school contracts for services and property are subject to the same procedures and restrictions that apply to all public schools and school districts, and the same competitive bidding laws that apply to districts.

2