A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Oversight, Renewal and Revocation

In order to hold charter schools accountable, there must be a means of assessing their performance and terminating their contracts when they do not meet expectations. Although charter school closures have made headlines in Arizona, California and Minnesota, so many charter schools are just beginning their operations that it is difficult to speculate on the number of contracts that will typically be renewed.

The terms for initial and renewed charters vary by state, but tend to be 3 to 5 years with Arizona issuing the longest contract at 15 years. All states retain the authority to close a charter school before the completion of the contract.

Considerations:

Charter Oversight

Most state statutes require charter schools to report progress to the sponsor, the district and the state legislature. Many require a yearly fiscal audit. Most states allow the charter school to conduct the audit, but Minnesota, for example, gives audit authority to the state board of education. Some states also require charter schools to submit an annual report on their progress toward achieving the goals identified in its charter.

Consider the following options:

1. Charter legislation should not require yearly reports on financial and academic performance.

• Yearly reports do not allow the charter school time to establish itself before being evaluated. Charter schools should be held to long-term goals measured after they have had sufficient time to establish their programs.

• Yearly reports are a burden on the charter school in terms of time and resources, and are perceived as another obstacle.

2. Charter school legislation should require yearly reports on financial and academic performance.

• Oversight is necessary on a yearly basis to ensure that charter school students are receiving a quality education.

• Oversight is necessary on a yearly basis to ensure that charter schools are held accountable for the terms of their contract.

• To fairly assess a charter school, a complete history is necessary, not just an analysis conducted every third or fifth year.

Revocation

Given the experimental nature of charter schools, some are bound to be unsuccessful in terms of both performance and management. Revocation language allows states to close mismanaged schools before the term of their charter is over. Most frequently, revocation occurs due to financial mismanagement, a violation of the charter agreement, or failure to meet student achievement goals and expectations. Currently, all states provide explicit grounds for revocation.

Consider the following options:

1. Charter legislation should explicitly list grounds for revocation.

• Sponsors or authorities should have the legal ability to close mismanaged schools immediately.

• A charter school is likely to fight any attempt to revoke its contract, so legislation should explicitly state all grounds for which revocation can occur.

2. If a state has school reconstitution legislation for public school takeovers, the lime rules should apply to charter schools.

• Charter schools should be held to the same rules as all other schools in a district; therefore, before a charter school is closed, reconstituting should be applied.

Term of Charter and Renewal

States typically set the initial and renewal term for the charter school between 3 and 5 years.

This allows states to review charter schools and creates a potentially higher level of accountability. Arizona took a different approach. It set a 15-year term, which provides charter schools with stability and allows them to apply for credit and mortgages. Terms for the length of the charter in some states are flexible, allowing the district to decide when to renew the charter within the prescribed limits.

Consider the following options:

1. The term for the charter school should be flexible within a prescribed number of years.

• As each charter school is its own entity, each school should be analyzed individually with sponsors having the ability to grant successful schools longer renewals, and charter schools with more questionable success shorter terms.

• Sponsors may have different schedules and procedures. They should be given maximum flexibility within a certain time frame.

1. Charter schools should be granted a set renewal period.

• A set renewal period gives charter schools stability to build an effective program and, thus, shields them from criticism early in their efforts.

Renewal Applications

Charter school renewal policies vary among states, ranging from no statutory requirements to explicitly listed reports and financial statements. Given the attention accompanying the non-renewable of a charter school, most states have evaluation criteria written in their charter school legislation.

Consider the following options:

1. Evaluate charter schools and provide explicit provisions for a renewal application.

• Evaluating charter schools is necessary to determine what, if any, innovations have occurred, and what effects they have had.

• Given that decisions not to renew may be met with hostility, specific criteria should be outlined so that the reason for non-renewable can be fully explained.

• To further equity in renewal decisions, specific reporting requirements stated in the charter and the evaluation criteria from the sponsor should be statutorily defined.

2. No evaluation and renewal application provisions should be specified.

• Statutorily defining evaluation criteria takes power away from the sponsoring entity to evaluate charter schools based on their own criteria.

• Charter schools should be evaluated individually with the criteria varying by the mission and goals of the school and its sponsoring entity.

Appeal of Renewal Petition

Typically, states that allow appeals of the decision on initial charter petitions also allow charter schools to appeal the decision on the renewal application as well.

Consider the following options:

1. An appeals process should be available as part of the charter school renewal process.

• Political factors could allow successful charter schools to be closed for reasons unrelated to performance. An appeals process protects charter schools.

• Some states exercise supervisory powers over school districts and, therefore, should ultimately determine which charter schools are allowed to continue.

2. No appeals process should be included in the charter school renewal process.

• The sponsoring entity should have complete control over which charter schools are renewed, since it is accountable for charter school oversight.

Technical Assistance

Once charter school legislation becomes law, technical assistance providers emerge to meet the immediate demand for information regarding state and district policies and procedures and other important information regarding the start-up and maintenance of charter schools. Along with start-up information, technical assistance providers often create the infrastructure for charter schools to network both within a state and nationally, disseminating information about everything from legal issues to the latest grant opportunity. Many states have more than one technical assistance provider, in addition to the service provided by the state education agency. Given the likelihood that an organization of this type will emerge to support charter schools, is it necessary to create another entity in the state education department to work with charter schools?

Consider the following options:

1. Include technical assistance provisions within the statute.

• To maximize the number of charter schools created and maintained, the state education agency should provide technical assistance.

• Providing technical assistance by the state education department is one way in which the state can monitor charter schools, thereby ensuring proper implementation of the law.

2. Exclude technical assistance provisions within the statute.

• Technical assistance providers will emerge whether or not the state education agency provides assistance, so no extra provisions need to be included in the statute.

• Legislating technical assistance creates another layer of bureaucracy, unnecessarily adding to the costs of education.

Program Duration and Oversight

States that pass charter school legislation as a pilot program or impose a sunset law include a termination date for the charter school program. While many states do not limit the duration of charter school programs, these states often require the state education agency or another outside entity to review the effectiveness of the program and report to the legislature.

1. The duration of charter school programs should be limited, and the state education agency or another entity should report to the legislature on the effectiveness of the program.

• Because the effectiveness of charter schools is still uncertain, the legislature should hear reports on the effectiveness of the charter school program.

2. The duration of charter school programs should not be limited, nor should the state board of education or another entity report on the effectiveness of the program to the legislature.

• Given the unique missions and student bodies of each charter school, each should be evaluated on the merits of its achievement only after it has had a stable period of time to build and implement its programs.

[Teachers and Staff]

[Appendix A. - Legislative Examples]

This page was last updated January 9, 2002 (jca)