Archived Information

D. Key Dimensions of State Charter Legislation and Their Variations Across States

Some of the literature on charter schools divides state charter legislation into oversimplified categories such as "strong" and "weak" laws. Although these terms provide some broad distinction among the different state approaches, they do not adequately reflect the complexity and subtlety of the legislative differences across states. At this juncture of the Study, we believe that the laws need to be compared in richer detail to discern patterns across states.

Consequently, we sought to design a classification scheme using a group of key dimensions that could capture both how state charter laws affect individual schools and their possibilities for affecting systemic school reform:

1. Who can grant charters
2. Types of charter schools allowed
3. Number of charter schools allowed
4. Legal status of charter schools
5. Waivers of state law for charter schools
6. Regulations on staff for charter schools
7. Labor relations involving charter schools
8. Charter school accountability: duration of charter term
9. Funding and financing of charter schools
10. Charter school accountability: student assessment
11. Charter school accountability: grounds for revoking a charter
12. Charter school accountability: charter renewal process

This section focuses on describing these critical aspects of state laws which are indicative of each state's approach to charter schools. (Appendix B of this document summarizes each state's charter legislation.)

1. State Approaches to Who Can Grant Charters

Legislation in three states (Delaware, Massachusetts, and Texas) authorizes the State Board of Education to grant charters to newly created charter schools and authorizes districts to grant charters to public school conversions. In both Illinois and Kansas, the district approves the charter after the state reviews the charter proposal for completeness. In three states (Connecticut, Mississippi, and Nevada) both the local district and the state board must approve a charter.

EXHIBIT 2-3

STATE APPROACHES TO WHO CAN GRANT CHARTERS

Approach	States
Only local school boards can grant charters; decision cannot be appealed	Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Pennsylvania[1], Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Only local school boards can grant charters but decision can be appealed	California, Colorado, Florida[2], New Hampshire, and South Carolina
Only state board can grant charters	Arkansas, Georgia, New Mexico, and Rhode Island
Only the State Commissioner of Education can grant charters	New Jersey
Both local school boards and state agencies can grant charters	Arizona, District of Columbia, and Ohio
Local school boards and institutions of higher education can grant charters	Michigan and Minnesota[3]
Local school boards, public universities, and state board can grant charters	North Carolina
Local school board approves charter with a review by the state board	Illinois and Kansas
Both the local school board and the state board must approve the charter	Connecticut[4], Mississippi, and Nevada
Local school board grants public school conversions and state board grants newly-created schools	Delaware, Massachusetts[5], and Texas

1 Pennsylvania's charter legislation contains an appeals provision that goes into effect in the 1999-2000 school year.

2 In Florida, each state university can establish a "developmental research school."

3 Minnesota, as part of the 1997 legislative amendments, allows private colleges and technical colleges to grant charters.

4 In Connecticut, newly created schools are approved by the State Board of Education only.

5 The Massachusetts legislation was amended during the 1997 legislative session to include provisions that allow public school conversions. Until the new law went into effect, only the State Board of Education could grant a charter, so the charters open in the state at the time of this report were all granted by the State Board.

2. State Approaches to Types of Charter Schools Allowed

Charter schools are either newly created schools^[10] or pre-existing public or private schools that have converted to charter status. State legislation differs on what types of charter schools are authorized--some legislation only allows the conversion of existing public schools, other states allow both the conversion of existing public schools and the creation of new schools. Finally, a third group of states additionally allows the conversion of private schools to charter status (see Exhibit 2-4 for a summary).

Four states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and New Mexico) do not permit newly created schools; they only allow the conversion of public schools to charter status. Legislation in 20 of the charter states allows both the conversion of existing public schools and the chartering of newly created schools. Only five states (Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) and the District of Columbia allow newly created schools and the conversion of both public and private schools to charter status.^[11]

EXHIBIT 2-4

STATE APPROACHES TO TYPES OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ALLOWED

Approach	States
Only public conversion schools allowed	Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and New Mexico
Newly created and public conversion schools allowed	Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin[1], and Wyoming
Newly created, public and private conversion schools allowed	Arizona, District of Columbia, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas

1 Wisconsin's law allows for the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.

3. State Approaches to Number of Charter Schools Allowed

The number of charter schools allowed to operate also differs by state. Legislation in some states limits the number of charter schools to just a few schools while others allow essentially an unlimited number of charters (see Exhibit 2-5 for a summary). Thirteen of the charter states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have no statewide limit on the number of charter schools allowed. Although legislation in Florida does not specify a statewide limit, the legislation restricts the number of charters each district can grant based on the size of the district, creating, in effect, a limit of 487 charter schools. Legislation in Nevada and Texas imposes no limit on schools serving at-risk students, but imposes some limits on the number of newly created charter schools not serving at-risk students. Legislation in both the District of Columbia (limit of 10 schools in 1996 and 20 per year thereafter) and New Hampshire (10 per year until 2000 when the cap is lifted) imposes an annual limit on the number of charters that can be granted, while New Mexico and Mississippi restrict the number of charters allowed to five schools and six schools, respectively. The remaining 11 states also limit to some degree the number of charters, the number or percentage of students who can enroll in charter schools statewide, or both.

EXHIBIT 2-5

STATE APPROACHES TO NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ALLOWED

Approach	States
No state limit on the number of charter schools	Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida[1], Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Annual limit on the number of charter schools	District of Columbia and New Hampshire
Some limitation on number of schools or the number or percentage of students statewide who can enroll in a charter school	Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Rhode Island
No limit on schools serving "at-risk" students, but limit on other schools	Nevada and Texas[2]

1 Although the Florida legislation does not specify a statewide limit, the legislation does restrict the number of charters granted in each district based on district size. The effective cap for the state is 487 schools.

2 In Texas, there are no limits on charters granted by districts to public school conversions.

4. State Approaches to the Legal Status of Charter Schools

Exhibit 2-6 summarizes the different approaches states take with regard to the degree of independence and the legal status of charter schools. In every state, charter schools are defined as public schools. In 17 states and the District of Columbia, the legislation identifies charter schools as independent entities, corporate entities, or nonprofit organizations. Texas legislation designates charter schools as governmental agencies. In nine states (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) charter schools remain legally a part of their local school districts. Legislation in the remaining two states--California and Mississippi--does not directly address the legal status of charter schools although in California, many are formed as independent corporate entities.

EXHIBIT 2-6

STATE APPROACHES TO THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

Approach	States
Schools act as independent entities (corporate entities, nonprofit organizations, or independent governmental bodies)	Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming
Schools remain legally a part of their local school districts	Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin
Legislation does not directly address charter school status	California and Mississippi

5. State Approaches to Waivers of State Law for Charter Schools

Waivers from state laws determine the amount of autonomy afforded a charter school to develop and implement its charter. State charter legislation regarding waivers varies greatly. While some state legislation frees charter schools from practically all state regulations, legislation in other states is more restrictive (see Exhibit 2-7 for a summary). In 17 states and the District of Columbia, the charter legislation provides an automatic waiver from most of the provisions of the state education code for charter schools, with a few standard exceptions. Exceptions to the automatic waiver typically require charter schools to abide by state laws and regulations relating to health and safety, civil rights, disability rights, and nondiscrimination in admissions and employment, and impose requirements that schools be nonsectarian and that they not charge tuition. In ten states (Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island), the legislation requires that the charter document specify the education code provisions that are to be waived. In two states (Alaska and New Mexico), charter schools are responsible for following most of the state education code.

EXHIBIT 2-7

STATE APPROACHES TO WAIVERS OF STATE LAW FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

Approach	States
Automatic waiver of all or most of the state education code (except for regulations relating to health and safety, civil rights and non discrimination, disability rights, and requirements that schools be non-sectarian)	Arizona, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Charters apply for waivers-provisions to be waived are determined on a case-by-case basis and are often noted in the school's charter	Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island
Charter school is responsible for following most of the state education code	Alaska and New Mexico

6. State Approaches to Employment Status of Staff for Charter Schools

State charter legislation contains various provisions that govern how a charter school relates to its employees. In some states, the charter school acts as an employer, while, in other states, charter school staff remain (or become) employees of the local district. In a third group of states, employment rules differ based on whether the school is newly created or a conversion school (see Exhibit 2-8 for a summary). In 15 states and the District of Columbia, charter schools are the official employers of their staff. In nine states (Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin), legislation requires that teachers remain (or become) employees of the district. In Ohio, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas, staff are employed by the charter schools in newly created schools, but remain employees of the district in conversion schools. Finally, California's legislation is silent about who employs charter school staff--in practice, some California charter schools act as employers while for other schools, the district is the employer of record.

EXHIBIT 2-8

STATE APPROACHES TO EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF STAFF FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

Approach	States
Charter schools may act as employers	Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming
Teachers remain or become employees of the district	Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin
Employees of district if in public conversion school, employees of the charter school if in newly created school or private conversion schools	Ohio, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas
Legislation silent on employment status	California

7. State Approaches to Labor Relations Involving Charter Schools

Some charter school legislation specifies how collective bargaining laws apply to charter schools. Whether or not employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements differs by state and affects the flexibility and operation of charter schools. Exhibit 2-9 lists key differences across the states on this issue. In 19 states, charter schools are subject to state collective bargaining laws and charter school staff are allowed to bargain collectively. In some of those states, staff members remain in the district's bargaining unit while in other states they are allowed to form their own bargaining unit. In three states (Florida, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia, charter legislation is silent on the status of collective bargaining arrangements. Six states with charter legislation (Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) do not have collective bargaining laws. California's legislation allows schools to include their approaches to collective bargaining in their charters.

EXHIBIT 2-9

STATE APPROACHES TO LABOR RELATIONS INVOLVING CHARTER SCHOOLS

Approach	States
Charter schools subject to state collective bargaining laws	Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island
Legislation silent on collective bargaining	District of Columbia, Florida, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
State does not have collective bargaining	Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas
Legislation allows schools to address collective bargaining in their charters	California

8. State Approaches to the Funding and Financing of Charter Schools

The mechanisms employed to fund charter schools differ by state. Some state legislation calls for funding directly from the state treasury while in other states, state funds for charter schools are first directed to the district or other charter-granting agency and then to the schools themselves. In a third group of states, some funding flows to charter schools directly from the state while other funds are directed to the schools from the district (see Exhibit 2-10 for a summary). In 18 states^[12] and the District of Columbia, funding flows from the host district to the charter school--in some states, the amount of per-pupil funding is the same as that provided to other public schools while in other states, charter schools get smaller per-pupil allotments. In five states (Arizona, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio), funding for charter schools comes directly from the state and is the same as state funding for other public schools. In Michigan, funding comes from the state through the charter-granting agency and approximates the funding of other public schools. In five states (Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas) some charter school funding flows from the state and some from the district.

Most charter legislation contains four provisions for accountability: limited-term duration of charters, requirements for student assessments, grounds for charter revocation, and process for renewal. We discuss each in turn, starting with Duration of Charter Term.

EXHIBIT 2-10

STATE APPROACHES TO THE FUNDING AND FINANCING OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

Approach	States
Funding flows from host district to charter school	Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii[1], Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Funding for charter schools comes directly from the state	Arizona, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio
Funding comes from the charter-granting agency	Michigan
Some charter school funding comes from the state and some from the district	Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas

1 In Hawaii, the district and the state are the same entity.

9. State Approaches to Charter School Accountability: Duration of Charter Term

In all but two states (New Mexico and Texas), charter schools operate under performance-based contracts which specify the duration of the charter (see Exhibit 2-11 for a summary). In New Mexico, the legislation specifies a five-year duration for charters, but does not clearly specify that the charters operate under a performance-based contract. In Texas, the duration of the charter is not specified but the schools do operate as performance-based contracts. The duration of the term of the charters ranges from an annual review in Pennsylvania to 15 years (with interim five-year reviews) in both Arizona and the District of Columbia. Three- or five-year terms are the most common; legislation in 13 states specifies a five-year term and in eight other states, the term is three years.

EXHIBIT 2-11

STATE APPROACHES TO CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY: DURATION OF CHARTER TERM

Approach	States
Mandatory annual review	Pennsylvania
3-year charter duration	Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, and South Carolina
3-to-5-year charter duration	Illinois
4-year charter duration	Hawaii and New Jersey
4-to-6-year charter duration	Mississippi
5-year charter duration	Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
10-year charter duration with mandatory review every seven years	Michigan
15-year charter duration with reviews every 5 years	Arizona and District of Columbia
Duration not specified in the law must be specified in charter contract	Texas

10. State Approaches to Charter School Accountability: Student Assessment

Typically, state laws require that charter schools use the state's assessment test. This requirement holds in 17 of the charter states, as Exhibit 2-12 shows. At the time of this writing, two of those states, Arizona and California, did not have a state assessment test in place but were planning to have a new test in place by Spring 1998. Four states (Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia require that charter schools use the assessment tools required of other public schools, including district-level assessments. Charter legislation in five states (Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, and Rhode Island) requires the charter document to set out the school's approach to assessment. In Alaska, charter schools negotiate assessment requirements with the sponsoring district. In Hawaii and Wyoming, the legislation does not specify an assessment requirement.

EXHIBIT 2-12

STATE APPROACHES TO CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY: STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Approach	States
Charter school must use state tests	Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas
Charter schools must use assessments required of other public schools	Delaware, District of Columbia, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
Charter document must contain the school's approach to assessment	Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, and Rhode Island
Charter school negotiates assessment requirements with sponsoring district	Alaska
Legislation does not specify assessment requirement	Hawaii and Wyoming

11. State Approaches to Charter School Accountability: Grounds for Revoking a Charter

State laws vary somewhat on the specific combination of grounds necessary to revoke a school's charter (see Exhibit 2-13 for a summary). In 25 states and the District of Columbia, the sponsor can revoke a charter for a violation of one or more of the following factors: a material violation of the charter, financial mismanagement, insolvency, violation of the law, failure to meet student outcome goals, or unspecified good cause. Legislation in four of those states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina) contains an additional provision stating that the charter can be revoked if the majority of the staff and parents (Georgia and Mississippi) or two-thirds of the instructional staff (Arkansas and North Carolina) vote to end the charter. The Illinois law contains a provision that the charter can be revoked for violation of the charter, failure to meet student outcome goals, violation of laws, financial mismanagement, or if the district that granted the charter determines that the charter is not "in the best interest of the children in the district." In Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico, grounds for charter revocation are not specified in the legislation.

EXHIBIT 2-13

STATE APPROACHES TO CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY:
GROUNDS FOR REVOKING A CHARTER

Approach	States
Sponsor can revoke charter for the following: violation of charter, financial management, violation of law, failure to meet student outcome goals, or good cause	Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Inn addition to the grounds listed above, charter can be revoked if majority of the staff and parents vote to end he charter	Georgia and Mississippi
In addition to the grounds listed above, charter can be revoked if two-thirds of the instructional staff vote to end the charter	Arkansas and North Carolina
Charter can be revoked for violation of charter, violation of law, financial mismanagement, failure to meet student outcome goals, or is district determines charter is not in best interest of children in district	Illinois
Grounds not specified	Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico

12. State Approaches to Charter School Accountability: Charter Renewal Process

Exhibit 2-14 shows that the renewal process mirrors the charter-granting process in six states (Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island); in Louisiana, the charter school also must demonstrate improvement in the academic performance of its students as described in its charter. In nine states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas) and the District of Columbia, renewal is at the discretion of the sponsor; in Minnesota, the legislation also provides for an appeal of the revocation to the State Board of Education. In Arkansas, the process for renewal must be included in the school's charter, while in North Carolina, the renewal must be approved by both the sponsor and the State Board of Education. In the remaining 12 states, the legislation does not specify a renewal process. Presumably, the charter-granting agency in each of these states will determine the renewal process.

EXHIBIT 2-14

STATE APPROACHES TO CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY:
CHARTER RENEWAL PROCESS

Approach	States
Mirrors the charter-granting process	Connecticut, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island
Mirrors charter-granting process and school must also demonstrate improvement in academic performance of students as described in their charter	Louisiana
Renewal is at the discretion of the sponsor	Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas
At the discretion of sponsor, but legislation provides for an appeal to the State Board of Education	Minnesota
Renewal must be approved by both sponsor and State Board of Education	North Carolina
Process for renewal must be included in school's charter	Arkansas
Legislation does not specify a renewal process	Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

* * *

The foregoing summary illustrates that legislative frameworks established by states vary greatly and that charter developers in some states are more or less constrained than in others. The Study is developing rubrics to classify each state according to the way the state's charter law might affect the autonomy afforded and the accountability required of individual charter developers and how the statutes might stimulate or hinder broader effects on the public education system. The results of this analysis will be presented in future reports.

Appendix B contains a state-by-state summary of the legislation across all states with charter laws as of the 1997 legislative session. The next section summarizes statutes for states that enacted their first charter legislation during 1997. In addition, several states made significant changes in their charter legislation during the 1997 legislative session; a later section of this chapter describes these changes.
-###-

[II. State Approaches to the Charter Concept (part 1 of 3)]

[II. State Approaches to the Charter Concept (part 3 of 3)]