Arizona

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

Arizona law allows new start-ups and public school conversions

Arizona law allows charter applicants to apply to the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS), the state board of education, a university, a community college district, or a group of community college districts. However, the state board of education has a self-imposed moratorium on charter authorizing, so ASBCS currently oversees all schools approved by both state boards.

Arizona law requires authorizes to submit an annual report to the auditor general on or before October 1st of each year. The report shall include the current number of charters authorized and the number of schools operated by authorized charter holders, the academic and operational performance of the authorizer’s charter portfolio as measured by the authorizer’s adopted performance framework, the number of new charters approved and the number of charter schools closed and reason for the closure in the prior year, and the authorizer’s application, amendment, renewal, and revocation processes, charter contract template, and current performance framework.
The law requires the auditor general to review the submitted annual reports to ensure that the reports include the required items. If the auditor general finds significant noncompliance or a authorizer’s failure to submit the annual report on or before December 21st of each year, the auditor general shall report to the governor, the president of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairs of the Senate and House Education Committees or their successor committees and the legislature shall consider revoking the authorizer’s authority to authorize charter schools.

The law does not include an application process for a university, a community college district, or a group of community college districts to become an authorizer and does not require a periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

While the law does not provide adequate and guaranteed funding to authorizers, the ASBCS receives a small annual appropriation to cover the expenses of the board, staffing, and external contracts for various oversight functions. State law allows the ASBCS to accept gifts or grants. Also, state department of education staff or other state employees complete some oversight functions.
State law allows authorizers to charge a new charter application processing fee to any applicant, which must fully cover the cost of application review and any needed technical assistance. It also allows authorizers to approve policies that allow a portion of the fee to be returned to the applicant whose charter is approved. The law allows the ASBCS to charge a processing fee to any charter school that amends its contract to participate in the Arizona Online Instruction program.
Arizona law provides that authorizers, as public entities, are held accountable for reporting their expenditures.

Except for the new charter application processing fee, Arizona law provides that authorizers may not charge any fees to schools they sponsor unless they have provided services for the school, and any such fees must represent full value of those services. On request, the value of such services must be demonstrated to the state department of education.

Arizona law provides application elements for all charter schools.
The ASBCS also has policies that require information regarding proposed educational service provider usage in their application and policies for a replication application and review process. These policies apply to all schools approved by the two state boards, but not to schools approved by higher educational institutions.

Arizona law has general language regarding approval criteria. In addition, ASBCS regulations detail its approval criteria and. However, these detailed application processes do not apply to higher educational institution authorizers.
The law does not require authorizers to conduct a thorough evaluation of each application including an in-person interview and a public meeting. While not required by law, the ASBCS conducts interviews as part of its application review process.

Arizona law requires authorizers to make decisions in public meetings. For those applications denied, it requires authorizers to notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the rejection and of suggestions for improving the application.

Arizona law provides that an authorizer of a charter school may contract with a public body, private person or private organization for the purpose of establishing a charter school.
Arizona law requires all such contracts to include elements from the application regarding the roles and responsibilities of charter schools, but does not require the inclusion of requirements regarding the role of the authorizers.

The law does not require contracts to include detailed performance expectations against which schools are to be judged. In implementing their oversight and administrative responsibilities, however, Arizona law requires authorizers 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.

Renewal requirement policies for those schools approved or currently overseen by the ASBCS include more detailed performance contracts, but these policies do not apply to other authorizers nor are they codified in Arizona law or the Arizona Administrative Code.

Arizona law provides that the initial charter term is 15 years, but requires authorizers to review charters at five-year intervals using a performance framework adopted by the authorizer.

The law requires charter schools to participate in the state’s accountability system, which includes annual state-produced school report cards, which are public.
Arizona law requires charter schools to have an annual financial audit.

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 aid), enter into a consent agreement regarding the resolution of the noncompliance, or begin revocation.

Per Arizona law, schools must apply for a renewal of their charter at least 15 months before its expiration. It also allows schools to apply for early renewal at least nine months before the charter school’s intended renewal consideration.
The law requires authorizers to make a renewal application available to schools facing renewal. ASBCS policies include detailed renewal application requirements for schools approved by them, including the ability to offer supplementary performance information and future plans. However, the law does not require authorizers to issue performance reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

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

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

The law also provides that in determining whether to renew or revoke a charter holder, the authorizer must consider making sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the authorizer’s performance framework as one of the most important factors.

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

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

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

In reference to transfers, the law requires approval by the state superintendent of public instruction if a transfer is done after the beginning of a fiscal year. For other transfers, no state approval is required.

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

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 higher educational authorizers.
Law requires all persons engaged in instructional work directly as a classroom, laboratory or other teacher or indirectly as a supervisory teacher, speech therapist or principal to have a valid fingerprint clearance card.

Arizona law provides that all charter schools are fiscally and legally autonomous schools under the control of a “charter holder.” That charter holder may be a for-profit entity, a non-profit entity, or a single individual and may operate one or more schools under their charter, with such schools having boards with varying levels of authority over the school.

Arizona law requires charter schools to be open to all students in the state.Arizona law contains anti-discrimination provisions regarding admissions.
Arizona law requires charter schools to give enrollment preferences to pupils returning to the school and to siblings of such students. It does not require an enrollment preference for previously enrolled students within conversion charter schools.

Arizona law allows charter schools to give preference to children, grandchildren, or legal wards of employees of the school, employees of the charter holder, members of the governing body of the school, or directors, officers, partners, or board members of the charter holder and to a pupil who attended another charter school or are the siblings of that pupil if the charter school previously attended by the pupil has the identical charter holder, board, and governing board membership as the enrolling charter school or is managed by the same educational management organization, charter management organization, or educational service provider as determined by the charter authorizer.
Arizona law requires charter schools to use equitable selection processes such as a lottery if demand exceeds capacity.

Except as provided in Arizona’s charter school law for things like health, safety, and academic accountability and as provided in a charter school’s charter contract, Arizona law provides that a charter school is automatically exempt from statutes and rules relating to traditional public schools, governing boards, and school districts.
Arizona law provides that teachers within charter schools do not need to meet state certification requirements, but employee qualifications must be specified in the charter application and resumes for all employees must be maintained by the school and made available upon request by parents or others, including information on educational and teaching backgrounds and experience in a particular academic content subject area.

Arizona law provides that all charter schools are their own legal entity and thus do not have to abide by any outside agreements.

Arizona regulatory provisions regarding these arrangements require details for multi-site locations to be identified in the charter application. However, there is nothing in statute or regulation ensuring independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

Arizona law is silent about charter eligibility and access.

Arizona law provides that each charter school in the state is its own LEA and thus responsible for the special education needs of their enrolled students. The law details the flow of all funding, including special education funding, to charter schools. Arizona law allows charter schools to access the state’s Extraordinary Special Education Needs fund for low-incident, high cost services for charter schools in the same amount or in a manner similar to other LEAs.

Arizona law calculates a base support level for each charter school and these funds flow directly to charter schools for those approved by non-district entities. For those approved by a local district board, it flows through that district.
Arizona law provides equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds.

For charter schools authorized by local school boards, the law allows the district to provide transportation. For other charter schools, the law does not provide state transportation aid.

In a national study of charter school funding (University of Arkansas, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, 2014), Arizona charter schools were receiving on average $7,199 per pupil in public funds, while traditional public schools would have received $8,629 for those students. As a result, the state's charter schools were receiving $1,430 per pupil - or 16.8% - less than what the traditional public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and analysis reveals some continued significant inequities for both operational and capital funding (see component #19 for information on capital issues).

Arizona law provides charter schools with a per pupil allocation called “additional assistance” that may be used for facility construction as well as other operational needs. Statute provides that this amount is $1,707.77 per K-8 pupil and $1,990.38 per high school pupil. There is no provision, however, for this amount to be adjusted to reflect average facility funding received by traditional public schools or a construction price index.
Arizona law creates a $24 million achievement school district fund that will provide monies to public schools—including charters—that have a demonstrated wait list, plan to expand or replicate, and commit to mentoring low-performing schools.

Recent legislation also created a public school credit enhancement fund, which can be leveraged to provide more than $300 million of low-cost financing for quality schools, including charter schools.

Arizona law allows non-profit charter schools to apply for bond financing from Industrial Development Authorities.

Arizona law requires the state department of education, in conjunction with the state department of administration, to compile and publish an annual list of vacant and unused buildings or portions of buildings owned by the state or school districts that may be suitable for the operation of a charter school. However, nothing requires the owner to offer the right of first refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value to charter schools.

Arizona law requires the School Facilities Board to annually submit a list of vacant and unused buildings to the Governor, Senate President, and House Speaker.

Arizona law prohibits school districts from excluding charter schools in bidding if a school district decides to sell or lease unused facilities. However, it specifically states that a school district shall attempt to obtain the highest possible value under current market conditions for the sale or lease of the vacant and unused building or the vacant and unused portion of a building.

Arizona law classifies charter schools the same as public schools that are operated by a school district for the purposes of assessments of zoning fees, site plan fees, and development fees, including any required hearings or applications. It also prevents any political subdivision of the state from enacting or interpreting any law, rule, or ordinance in a manner that conflicts with that designation.

Arizona law provides that charter schools have the option to participate in the Arizona state retirement system. In addition, charter schools have the option to participate in the state health and accident insurance coverage program.

Arizona law does not include any of the model law’s provisions for full-time virtual charter schools.