MEASURING UP TO THE MODEL A RANKING OF STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS NINTH ANNUAL EDITION, JANUARY 2018 TODD ZIEBARTH LOUANN BIERLEIN PALMER NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY CHARTER SCHOOLS
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 Acknowledgments 5 2018 State Public Charter School Law Rankings 8 Essential Components of a Strong Public Charter School Law 10 Leading States for the 21 Essential Components of the National Alliance Model Law 14 45 State Profiles 104 Appendix A: Methodological Details 2
INTRODUCTION The year 2017 proved to be a historic one for public charter school policy wins across the country. Kentucky became the 44th state (along with the District of Columbia) to enact a charter school law. Colorado and Florida required districts to share locally raised dollars with charter school students for the first time in those states, echoing changes made in Utah in 2016. Tennessee and Texas created new funding streams to specifically support charter school facility costs, the first time either state had done so. Wisconsin gave statewide authorizing ability to the Office of Educational Opportunity at the University of Wisconsin Madison, any University of Wisconsin Chancellor, and any technical college district board. And Illinois and Washington overhauled their public school funding systems in ways that will provide more equitable funding for their states students, including those in charter schools. At a time when we are seeing an increasing amount of pushback from long-time opponents, it is notable that charter school supporters achieved these gamechanging policy victories. We don t want to minimize the threats we are facing. We need to take them very seriously. At the same time, though, we are achieving some major policy wins for students across the country. We should not lose sight of this progress. This year s edition of Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws takes into account these important policy wins. As this annual effort continues to evolve, we periodically refine our methodology to reflect what we are learning. This year s edition takes these refinements into account as well. We must continue pushing hard for more high-quality charter schools, particularly for those students who most need such options. We also must keep advocating for the public policies that will best support the creation and operation of such schools. We hope this report continue to serve as a helpful resource for those engaged in this critical work. Nina Rees President and CEO National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Todd Ziebarth Senior Vice President of State Advocacy and Support National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 3
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Todd Ziebarth, senior vice president of state advocacy and support at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and Louann Bierlein Palmer, educational leadership professor at Western Michigan University. We shared draft analyses with individuals in the jurisdictions in this report, including individuals working at state departments of education, state public charter school associations and resource centers, and other organizations. We want to acknowledge and thank them for their invaluable feedback. Any remaining errors and omissions in the state analyses and rankings are the responsibility of the authors, not the reviewers from the states. 4
2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS Some key takeaways from this year s rankings include: For the third year in a row, Indiana has the nation s strongest charter school law in the country, ranking No. 1 (out of 45). Indiana s law does not cap charter school growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. Indiana has also made notable strides in recent years to provide more equitable funding to charter schools, although some work remains to be done. Colorado jumped from No. 5 to No. 2, in part because of legislation that the state enacted in 2017 that will provide charter schools with equitable access to a local funding stream that most districts had refused to share with charter schools (i.e., local mill levy override). Kentucky became the 45th state to enact a public charter school law in 2017. Kentucky lawmakers took great care in writing this law to ensure that the state heeded the lessons learned within the first quarter-century of the charter movement and also took into the account the state constitutional constraints that exist. As a result, they enacted a relatively strong charter school law, ranking No. 10. The Top 10 includes a mixture of states with more mature movements (Indiana at No. 1, Colorado at No. 2, Minnesota at No. 4, D.C. at No. 8, and Florida at No. 9) and states with newer movements (Washington at No. 3, Alabama at No. 5, Mississippi at No. 6, Maine at No. 7, and Kentucky at No. 10). The fact that these states are in the Top 10 speaks to the fact that many existing states continue to strengthen their laws based on what s working (and what s not working) and that new states rely heavily on those lessons learned so they don t repeat the mistakes of the states that came before them. States that are enacting laws for the first time and states that are overhauling their laws are bypassing states that were previously more highly ranked, such as Arizona, Louisiana, and New York. That doesn t mean that the laws have gotten weaker in the states being bypassed. They remain strong. What it does mean, though, is that more and more states have better and better laws across the country, a good place to be if you believe that all states should have high-quality charter school laws. Maryland has the nation s weakest charter school law, ranking No. 45 (out of 45). While Maryland s law does not cap charter school growth, it allows only district authorizers and provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charter schools. Rounding out the bottom five states are Iowa (No. 41), Wyoming (No. 42), Alaska (No. 43), and Kansas (No. 44). 5
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 1: 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS 1 2018 RANKING STATE 2018 SCORE 2017 SCORE SCORE DIFFERENCE 2017 RANKING RANKING DIFFERENCE 1 Indiana 181 177 4 1 0 2 Colorado 181 165 16 5 3 3 Washington 179 164 15 4 1 4 Minnesota 178 171 7 3-1 5 Alabama 177 174 3 2-3 6 Mississippi 169 160 9 10 4 7 Maine 167 161 6 7 0 8 D.C. 166 153 13 18 10 9 Florida 166 161 5 8-1 10 Kentucky 166 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Nevada 165 159 6 13 2 12 Louisiana 164 161 3 9-3 13 Massachusetts 162 159 3 12-1 14 New York 162 162 0 6-8 15 Arizona 160 160 0 11-4 16 North Carolina 160 157 3 14-2 17 Delaware 157 151 6 19 2 18 California 156 154 2 16-2 19 South Carolina 155 153 2 17-2 20 Utah 154 146 8 23 3 21 Idaho 153 150 3 20-1 22 Oklahoma 153 156-3 15-7 23 Ohio 153 147 6 21-2 1 In case of a tie, we first looked at each state s total weighted score for the four quality control components (No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9). Whichever state had the highest score was ranked higher. If the states had the same total weighted score for these components, we looked at each state s total weighted score for the three autonomy components (No. 11, No. 13, and No. 14). Whichever state had the highest score was ranked higher. If the states had the same total weighted score for these components, we looked at each state s weighted score for the multiple authorizer component (No. 3). Whichever state had the highest score was ranked higher. If the states had the same weighted score for this component, we looked at each state s weighted score for the funding component (No. 18 and No. 19). Whichever state had the highest score was ranked higher. 6
2018 State Public Charter School Law Rankings 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 1: 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS 2018 RANKING STATE 2018 SCORE 2017 SCORE SCORE DIFFERENCE 2017 RANKING RANKING DIFFERENCE 24 New Hampshire 151 139 12 24 0 25 New Mexico 148 146 2 22-3 26 Missouri 147 130 17 32 6 27 Georgia 145 145 0 24-3 28 Texas 145 142 3 25-3 29 Tennessee 145 133 12 29 0 30 Michigan 143 137 6 27-3 31 Arkansas 141 132 9 30-1 32 Hawaii 141 136 5 28-4 33 New Jersey 131 124 7 35 2 It is important to note that our primary focus was to assess whether and how state laws and regulations addressed the National Alliance model law, not whether and how practices in the state addressed it. In a couple of areas such as caps and funding we incorporated what was happening in practice because we felt it was necessary to do so to fairly capture the strength of the law. Notwithstanding these instances, the purpose of the analyses is to encourage state laws and regulations to require best practices and guarantee charter school rights and freedoms so that state charter school movements will benefit from a supportive legal and policy environment. 34 Pennsylvania 131 131 0 31-3 35 Illinois 130 123 7 36 1 36 Oregon 129 126 3 34-2 37 Connecticut 126 126 0 33-4 38 Rhode Island 123 117 6 37-1 39 Wisconsin 109 104 5 38-1 40 Virginia 94 91 3 39-1 41 Iowa 91 82 9 41 0 42 Wyoming 87 87 0 40-2 43 Alaska 83 78 5 42-1 44 Kansas 65 65 0 43-1 45 Maryland 61 51 11 44-1 Note: The total points possible is 240. 7
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW In this report, we evaluate each state s public charter school law against the 21 essential components of a strong charter school law. These 21 components are drawn from the National Alliance s A New Model Law for Supporting the Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools: Second Edition. Table 2 lists the 21 essential components and a brief description of each. 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 2: ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW ESSENTIAL COMPONENT 1 No Caps on the growth of charter schools in a state. 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed, including new startups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available, to which charter applicants may directly apply. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required, whereby all authorizers must affirm interest to become an authorizer (except for a legislatively created state charter school commission) and participate in an authorizer reporting program based on objective data, as overseen by some state-level entity with the power to sanction. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding, including provisions for guaranteed funding from the state or authorizer fees and public accountability for such expenditures. 6 Transparent Charter School Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes, including comprehensive academic, operational, and governance application requirements, with such applications reviewed and acted on following professional authorizer standards. 7 Performance-based Charter School Contracts Required, with such contracts created as separate post-application documents between authorizers and charter schools detailing academic performance expectations, operational performance expectations, and school and authorizer rights and duties. 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes so that all authorizers can verify charter school compliance with applicable law and their performance-based contracts. 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions, including school closure and dissolution procedures to be used by all authorizers. 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers, provided there is a clear performance contract between an independent charter school board and the service provider and there are no conflicts of interest between the two entities. 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards, whereby charter schools are created as autonomous entities with their boards having most of the powers granted to traditional school boards. 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures, which must be followed by all charter schools. 8
2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 2: ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW ESSENTIAL COMPONENT 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations, except for those covering health, safety, civil rights, student accountability, employee criminal history checks, open meetings, freedom of information requirements, and generally accepted accounting principles. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption, whereby charter schools are exempt from any outside collective bargaining agreements, while not interfering with laws and other applicable rules protecting the rights of employees to organize and be free from discrimination. 15 Multi-school Charter Contract and/or Multi-charter School Contract Boards Allowed, whereby an independent charter school board may oversee multiple schools linked under a single charter contract or may hold multiple charter contracts. 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access, whereby (a) charter school students and employees are eligible for state- and district-sponsored interscholastic leagues, competitions, awards, scholarships, and recognition programs to the same extent as district public school students and employees; and (b) students at charter schools that do not provide extracurricular and interscholastic activities have access to those activities at district- public schools for a fee via a mutual agreement. 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities, including clarity on which entity is the local education agency responsible for such services and how such services are to be funded (especially for low-incident, high-cost cases). 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding, flowing to the school in a timely fashion and in the same amount as district schools following eligibility criteria similar to all other public schools. 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities, including multiple provisions such as facilities funding, access to public space, access to financing tools, and other supports. 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems, with the option to participate in a similar manner as all other public schools. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions, including specific provisions regarding authorizing structure, enrollment criteria, enrollment levels, accountability for performance, funding levels based on costs, and performance-based funding. 9
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws LEADING STATES FOR THE 21 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE MODEL LAW This year s rankings report again details the leaders for each of the 21 essential components of the National Alliance model law i.e., those states that received the highest rating for a particular component. For 17 of the 21 components, the leading states received a rating of 4 on a scale of 0 to 4. For Components 9, 18, and 19, no states received a 4, so the leading states are those that received a rating of 3. For Component 21, no states received higher than a 2, so no states are listed. Table 3 lists the leading states for each component. The District of Columbia is counted in Table 3 as if it were a state. 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 3: LEADING STATES FOR THE 21 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE MODEL LAW ESSENTIAL COMPONENT STATES 1 No Caps (23 States) Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed (42 states ) Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming 3 Non-district Authorizers Available (24 states) Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required (12 states): Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding (8 states): Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington 10
2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 3: LEADING STATES FOR THE 21 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE MODEL LAW ESSENTIAL COMPONENT 6 Transparent Charter School Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes (4 states): 7 Performance-based Charter School Contracts Required (7 states) 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes (1 state) 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions (21 states) 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers (2 states): 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards (30 states) 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures (13 states) 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations (5 states) 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption (27 states) 15 Multi-school Charter Contracts and/or Multi-charter School Contract Boards Allowed (19 states) 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access (7 states): STATES Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Washington Alabama, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington Washington Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington Florida, Kentucky Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin Alabama, California, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin Alabama, Arizona, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Oklahoma Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wyoming Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah, Washington 11
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws 2018 STATE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS TABLE 3: LEADING STATES FOR THE 21 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE MODEL LAW ESSENTIAL COMPONENT 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities (4 states) 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding (4 states) 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities (8 states) 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems (14 states): STATES California, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Utah California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions (0 states) 12
13
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ALABAMA 5 Changes Alabama s score increased from 174 points to 177 points. Its score increased because of changes in the methodology for Component No. 3 (Non-district Authorizers Available). Its ranking moved from No. 2 (out of 44) to No. 5 (out of 45). Recommendations Alabama s law contains a cap that allows for ample growth, includes a state authorizing pathway, has strong quality-control components, gives operational autonomy to public charter schools, and provides equitable operational and categorical funding to charter schools. The primary weaknesses of the law are that it provides inequitable facilities funding and inadequate accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. RANK (OUT OF 45) 177 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 2015 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 0 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 0 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 The main places for improvement are ensuring equitable access to capital funding and facilities and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. 14
State Ratings: Alabama ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state has a cap with room for ample growth. 3 3 9 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law creates a non-district authorizer. It allows the authorizer to hear an application if one of the following factors is met: An application to form a charter school is denied by a district that is registered as an authorizer and the applicant chooses to appeal the denial to the non-district authorizer. The applicant wishes to open a start-up charter school in a district that is not registered as an authorizer. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes all of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes many of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. educational service providers. The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes all of the model law s requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law provides automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations and does not require any of a school s teachers to be certified. The state law does not require any charter schools to be part of district personnel policies. The state law allows both of these arrangements and requires each school to be independently accountable for fiscal and academic performance. The state law provides charter school eligibility for extracurricular and interscholastic activities. The state law includes some of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational and categorical funding, but there is no evidence of the amount of funds charter students versus district students receive. provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law provides some charter schools with the option to participate in the relevant state employee retirement systems but requires other schools to participate. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions The state law does not include any of the model law s requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 3 9 3 2 6 4 4 16 4 4 16 3 1 3 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 6 0 3 0 177 15
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ALASKA Changes Alaska s score increased from 78 points to 83 points. Its score increased because of changes in the methodology for Component No. 3 (Non-district Authorizers Available) and a clarification about existing policy for Component No. 17 (Clear Provisions Regarding Special Education Responsibilities). Its ranking moved from No. 42 (out of 44) to No. 43 (out of 45). Recommendations Alaska s law does not cap public charter school growth and includes an appellate mechanism for charter school applicants rejected by districts, but it also provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable facilities funding. 43 RANK (OUT OF 45) 83 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1995 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 29 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 6,600 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 Alaska s law still needs major improvement. Potential starting points include beefing up the law in relation to the model law s four qualitycontrol components (Components 6 through 9), increasing operational autonomy, ensuring equitable access to capital funding and facilities, ensuring transparency regarding educational service providers, and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. 16
State Ratings: Alaska ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state does not have a cap. 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law requires an applicant to apply to a district, but also allows the applicant to appeal a district denial to a non-district authorizer. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law does not include any of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems provisions for transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking performance-based charter contracts. provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. The state law does not include any of the model law s provisions for educational service providers. The state law does not include any of the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law provides automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations and requires all of a school s teachers to be certified. The state law requires all charter schools to be part of existing collective bargaining agreements, but schools can apply for exemptions. 3 3 9 0 3 0 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 0 2 0 0 3 0 1 2 2 2 3 6 1 3 3 The state law is silent regarding these arrangements. 1 2 2 The state law provides access to extracurricular and interscholastic activities at noncharter public schools. requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational funding and equal access to all state and federal categorical funding, and there is no evidence of the amount of funds charter public school students versus district students receive. provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law requires participation in the relevant employee retirement systems. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions The state law does not include any of the model law s requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 4 4 0 3 0 83 17
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ARIZONA Changes Arizona s score stayed at 160 points. Its ranking moved from No. 11 (out of 44) to No. 15 (out of 45). Recommendations Arizona s law does not have a cap on public charter school growth, allows multiple non-district authorizing entities, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability to its charter schools. However, the law still provides inequitable funding to charter school students by barring their access to significant funding streams. Potential areas for improvement in Arizona s law include ensuring equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities, providing adequate authorizer funding, and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. 15 RANK (OUT OF 45) 160 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1994 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 547 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 180,000 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 18
State Ratings: ARizona ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state does not have a cap. 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversion. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state allows multiple authorizing options in all situations, with direct access to each option. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes some of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes some of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. educational service providers. fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law provides automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations and does not require any of a school s teachers to be certified. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption The state law does not require any charter schools to be part of existing collective bargaining agreements. 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems The state law allows both of these arrangements but does not require each school to be independently accountable for fiscal and academic performance. 2 3 6 3 3 9 3 2 6 The state law is silent about charter eligibility and access. 1 1 1 The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational and categorical funding, but evidence demonstrates an equity gap between district and charter students of between 10 percent and 19.9 percent. equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law provides access to relevant employee retirement systems but does not require participation. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions The state law does not include any of the model law s requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 2 6 0 3 0 160 19
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws ARKANSAS Changes Arkansas score increased from 132 points to 141 points. Its score increased because of changes in the methodology for Component No. 3 (Non-district Authorizers Available). Its ranking moved from No. 30 (out of 44) to No. 31 (out of 45). Recommendations While Arkansas law has a cap on public charter school growth, it is structured in a way that allows ample growth. Although the state law provides a state authorizer and adequate accountability provisions, it provides inadequate autonomy and inequitable funding to charter schools. Potential areas for improvement include increasing operational autonomy, ensuring equitable operational funding, further ensuring equitable access to capital funding and facilities, ensuring transparency regarding educational service providers, and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. 31 RANK (OUT OF 45) 141 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1995 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 73 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 29,400 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 20
State Ratings: Arkansas ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state has a cap with room for ample growth. 3 3 9 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law allows an applicant anywhere in the state to apply directly to a non-district authorizer. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes all of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding provisions for adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes many of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. provisions for educational service providers. fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law allows schools to apply for exemptions from state and district laws, including from certification requirements. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption The state law requires some charter schools to be part of existing school district personnel policies. 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems The state law allows an independent charter public school board to oversee multiple schools linked under a single contract with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school. 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 6 3 2 6 2 3 6 2 3 6 The state law is silent about charter eligibility and access. 1 1 1 The state law includes some of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational funding and equal access to all state and federal categorical funding, and evidence demonstrates an equity gap between district and charter students of greater than 30 percent. equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law requires participation in the relevant employee retirement systems. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 0 4 0 1 3 3 141 21
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws CALIFORNIA Changes California s score increased from 154 points to 156 points. Its score increased because of policy changes for Component No. 12 (Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures). Its ranking moved from No. 16 (out of 44) to No. 18 (out of 45). Recommendations California s law has a cap that allows ample growth, provides a robust appellate process, and provides a fair amount of autonomy but lacks some aspects of the model law s accountability provisions. It has also made notable strides in recent years to provide more equitable funding to public charter schools although some work remains to be done. Potential areas for improvement in its charter school law include strengthening authorizer accountability, beefing up requirements for performance-based charter contracts, and ensuring transparency regarding educational service providers. 18 RANK (OUT OF 45) 156 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1992 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 1,253 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 604,700 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 22
State Ratings: California ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state has a cap with room for ample growth. 3 3 9 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law requires an applicant to apply to a district, but also allows the applicant to appeal a district denial to a non-district authorizer. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes a small number of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking provisions for performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes some of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. provisions for educational service providers. fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes all of the model law s requirements for student enrollment, and lottery procedures. The state law provides automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations and requires some of a school s teachers to be certified. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption The state law does not require any charter schools to be part of existing collective bargaining agreements. 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems The state law allows either of these arrangements but requires only schools authorized by some entities to be independently accountable for fiscal and academic performance. The state law does not explicitly address charter eligibility and access, but under the state s statutorily defined permissive education code, these practices are permitted because they are not expressly prohibited. The state law includes all of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. Evidence demonstrates an equity gap between district and charter students of between 20 percent and 29.9 percent, but recent policy changes have likely reduced this gap. equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law provides access to relevant employee retirement systems but does not require participation. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions The state law includes some of the model law s requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 3 9 1 3 3 1 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 9 3 3 9 3 2 6 3 1 3 2 3 6 156 23
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws COLORADO Changes Colorado s score increased from 164 points to 181 points. Its score increased because of policy changes for Component No. 18 (Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding), changes in the methodology for Component No. 3 (Non-district Authorizers Available) and No. 14 (Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption), and clarification about existing policy for Component No. 5 (Clear Provisions Regarding Special Education Responsibilities) and No. 16 (Extra-Curricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access). Its ranking moved from No. 5 (out of 44) to No. 2 (out of 45). Recommendations Colorado s law does not cap public charter school growth, provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability to charter schools, and provides multiple authorizers or a robust appellate process for charter school applicants. It has also made notable strides in recent years to provide more equitable funding to charter public schools although some work remains to be done. 2 RANK (OUT OF 45) 181 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1993 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 238 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 114,700 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 Potential areas for improvement in the law include continuing to strengthen equitable access to capital funding and facilities and strengthening accountability for full-time virtual charter schools. 24
State Ratings: Colorado ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state does not have a cap. 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law provides multiple authorizers or a robust appellate process for charter school applicantss. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes some of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes many of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. educational service providers. The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes some of the model law s requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law provides automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations and requires a school s teachers to be certified unless a waiver is granted in the charter contract. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption The state law does not directly address this issue but has been consistently interpreted to exempt charter schools from district collective bargaining agreements. 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems The state law allows both of these arrangements and requires each school to be independently accountable for fiscal and academic performance. The state law provides charter school extracurricular and interscholastic activity eligibility and access. The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational funding and equal access to all state and federal categorical funding. equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law requires participation in the relevant employee retirement systems. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 3 9 2 3 6 3 3 9 4 1 4 3 2 6 1 3 3 181 25
Measuring Up To The Model: A Ranking Of State Public Charter School Laws CONNECTICUT Changes Connecticut s score stayed at 126 points. Its ranking moved from No. 33 (out of 44) to No. 37 (out of 45). Recommendations Connecticut s law contains significant restrictions on growth and provides inadequate autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to public charter schools. Also, it creates a non-district authorizing option, but connects the school approval and opening process to legislative decisions about funding in a way that significantly inhibits school approvals and openings. Much improvement is still needed in Connecticut s charter school law, including lifting its remaining restrictions on growth and ensuring equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities. 37 RANK (OUT OF 45) 126 TOTAL POINTS (OUT OF 240) 1996 YEAR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW WAS ENACTED 24 NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN 2016 2017 9,700 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS IN 2016 2017 26
State Ratings: Connecticut ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF STRONG PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL LAW CURRENT COMPONENT DESCRIPTION RATING WEIGHT TOTAL SCORE 1 No Caps The state has a cap with room for limited growth. 1 3 3 2 A Variety of Charter Schools Allowed The state allows new start-ups and public school conversions. 3 Non-district Authorizers Available The state law creates a non-district authorizing option, but connects the school approval and opening process to legislative decisions about funding in a way that significantly inhibits school approvals and openings. 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required The state law includes all of the elements of the model law s authorizer and overall program accountability system. 5 Adequate Authorizer Funding The state law does not include any of the model law s provisions for adequate authorizer funding. 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decisionmaking Processes 7 Performance-based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 10 Transparency Regarding Educational Service Providers 11 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Charter School Boards 12 Clear Student Enrollment and Lottery Procedures 13 Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations transparent charter application, review, and decisionmaking performance-based charter contracts. comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection The state law includes some of the model law s clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. educational service providers. The state law includes all of the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for student enrollment and lottery procedures. The state law allows schools to apply for exemptions from state and district laws and requires some of a school s teachers to be certified. 14 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption The state law exempts some schools from existing collective bargaining agreements but not other schools (but allows those not exempted to apply for exemptions. 15 Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed 16 Extracurricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 17 Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities 18 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19 Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20 Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems 1 3 3 0 2 0 3 2 6 3 2 6 2 3 6 3 3 9 The state law prohibits these arrangements. 0 2 0 The state law is silent about charter eligibility and access. 1 1 1 The state law includes many of the model law s requirements for special education responsibilities. equitable operational funding and equal access to all state and federal categorical funding, and evidence demonstrates an equity gap between district and charter students of greater than 30 percent. equitable access to capital funding and facilities. The state law requires participation in the relevant employee retirement systems. 21 Full-time Virtual Charter School Provisions The state law does not include any of the model law s requirements for full-time virtual charter schools. 3 2 6 0 4 0 3 2 6 0 3 0 126 27