State Policy Recommendations

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State Law allows for multiple authorizers.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that allows for multiple authorizers. At least one authorizer should be an alternative to the local school district or local education agency (LEA); ideally, it should be a statewide independent charter board (ICB) established with the sole mission of chartering quality schools.

Every charter applicant should be able to apply directly to either authorizer. If there is currently only one authorizer, such as a local school district, there should be, at a minimum, an additional authorizer established that can authorize on appeal.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Having more than one authorizer provides a fail-safe for high-quality charter schools. This prevents a single reluctant, ambivalent, or hostile authorizer from blocking good charter school applicants or inappropriately closing schools. These alternative authorizers can also help establish expectations for all authorizers and provide models of strong practice for others to follow.

A second authorizer gives states the ability to sanction a specific authorizer without indirectly harming future applicants or strong schools. This approach is not meant to promote a large number of authorizers operating in any single locale.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

1.1 The State shall ensure the availability of multiple, high-quality charter school authorizers.

1.2 At a minimum, the State shall maintain at least two (2) qualified charter school authorizers in each jurisdiction, including an independent statewide charter school authorizer.

1.3 The purpose of maintaining multiple authorizers is to promote accountability, protect charter school autonomy, mitigate conflicts of interest, and ensure that no single authorizer unduly restricts access to high-quality charter school options.

1.4 A governing board of an entity seeking to serve as a charter school authorizer may apply to the [State Board of Education / Department of Education] for statewide, regional, or local chartering authority.

(a) The [State Board of Education / Department of Education] shall annually publicize to all eligible governing bodies the opportunity to register for chartering authority, including the registration deadline and submission requirements.
(b) To register as a charter authorizer, an applicant shall submit, in a format prescribed by the [State Board of Education / Department of Education]:

1. A written notice of intent to serve as a charter authorizer;
2. A description of the applicant’s strategic vision for chartering;
3. Evidence of budgetary resources, staffing capacity, and institutional commitment sufficient to carry out the duties of quality charter authorizing;
4. A description of how the applicant will solicit and evaluate charter applications in accordance with law;
5. An outline of the performance framework the applicant will use to guide charter contracting, oversight, and evaluation, consistent with this article;
6. A draft of renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation processes aligned with this article;
and
7. A statement of assurance committing to full adoption and implementation of statewide authorizer standards and the expectations of this article.

(c) Within sixty (60) days of receipt of a complete application, the [State Board of Education/ Department of Education] shall approve or deny registration and provide written notice of its decision. An entity may not engage in any charter authorizing functions without current registration.

1.5 The [State Board of Education / Department of Education] shall maintain and publish on its website a current list of all approved charter school authorizers.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law requires authorizer standards.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires the state to endorse national professional standards for quality charter school authorizing and requires all authorizers to meet these standards. Ideally, these will be NACSA’s Principles & Standards, created by independent experts and representing more than 20 years of development in the evolving charter school landscape.

These standards ensure authorizers engage in a full range of oversight activities, including (1) holding schools accountable for their performance goals, (2) protecting public dollars, and (3) looking out for the needs of special populations and the larger community. These standards also uphold the charter school model by striking the appropriate balance between autonomy and oversight.

Alternatively, a state should develop or endorse standards aligned with NACSA’s Principles & Standards requiring and providing guidance on strong authorizer practices and addressing all major stages and responsibilities of charter school authorizing and oversight.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Professional standards for authorizing promote rigor in charter school oversight and accountability for school performance. Authorizing is both a major public stewardship role and a complex profession requiring particular capacities and commitment. It should be treated as such—with standards-based barriers to entry and ongoing evaluation to maintain the right to authorize.

NACSA’s Principles & Standards guide authorizers through all key stages of charter oversight and include standards designed to protect student and public interests and to safeguard charter school autonomy.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

2.1 The [State Board of Education / Department of Education] shall adopt professional standards for quality charter school authorizing aligned with nationally recognized best practices.

2.2 All charter school authorizers shall adopt, implement, and comply with the statewide authorizer standards as a condition of maintaining authorizing authority.

2.3 The standards shall preserve an appropriate balance between rigorous oversight and meaningful charter school autonomy.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law requires authorizer evaluations.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires a qualified state entity to regularly evaluate authorizers on adherence to authorizer standards and on the performance of the charter schools they oversee. In some states, such as those that have only one authorizer, regular self-evaluation by authorizers themselves may be appropriate.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Authorizer evaluation functions as the authorizer equivalent of a charter school renewal evaluation, providing an opportunity to assess an authorizer’s performance on multiple levels. Evaluations ensure transparency so the public and policymakers know if and how an authorizer is contributing to a high-quality charter school sector.

If needed, these evaluations also provide a basis for further oversight. They require authorizers to step back from their day-to-day actions and transparently evaluate their practices. External evaluations also provide rigorous, unbiased evidence that can form a legitimate basis for authorizer sanctions.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

3.1 Each charter school authorizer shall be evaluated by the State on a regular cycle, no less frequently than once every five (5) years.

3.2 Evaluations shall assess:

(a) adherence to authorizer standards;
(b) compliance with applicable law; and
(c) the academic, financial, and organizational performance of the schools in the authorizer’s portfolio.

3.3 The [State Board of Education / Department of Education] shall publish the evaluation framework and results in a publicly accessible manner.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law allows for authorizer sanctions.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that sanctions authorizers if they do not meet professional standards or if the schools they oversee persistently fail to meet performance standards. Sanctions may include revoking the authorizer’s charge to oversee schools, revoking the authorizer’s power to authorize new schools, and transferring schools to other authorizers.

Some forms of authorizer sanctions may be counterproductive until a state has a viable alternative authorizer. In a state with only one authorizer, authorizer standards and evaluations should be used to inform and improve that authorizer’s practices, rather than to apply sanctions that would eliminate the only available authorizer.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Authorizers, like charter schools, must be closed if they persistently fail. The public entrusts authorizers to maintain portfolios of schools that serve the public good. This includes fostering strong student outcomes; maintaining the public trust through transparent, ethical actions; and adhering to professional standards in practices. An authorizer that violates this trust is no longer serving the public good and should no longer have the right to authorize schools.

Authorizer sanctions are not meant to eliminate the only available authorizer in any state or locale. Rather, sanctions ensure that, where there is an alternative authorizer, policymakers have a mechanism for pushing failing authorizers out of the sector. Even a single authorizer willing to help weak applicants and failing schools escape rigor and accountability can undermine strong practices by all other authorizers.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

4.1 The State shall establish a graduated system of sanctions for authorizers that fail to meet authorizer standards or evaluation expectations.

4.2 Sanctions may include corrective action plans, suspension of authority to approve new charter schools, limitation or revocation of authority to oversee existing schools, or other remedies necessary to protect students and public interests.

4.3 Prior to the imposition of sanctions, the authorizer shall receive written notice, an opportunity to respond, and a reasonable cure period, except where immediate action is required to protect student or public interests.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law requires authorizers to submit or publish regular reports.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires a public report on the academic performance of each charter school in an authorizer’s portfolio. This report should include measures of performance as established by the state accountability system and, ideally, the measures from the school performance framework used by the authorizer and set forth in the charter contract.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Policymakers, schools, parents, and the public should have access to transparent information on the academic performance of charter schools. These reports provide individual schools with an annual check-in against the performance goals in their charter agreement. They also provide policymakers, authorizers, and other stakeholders with a consolidated look at the school portfolio each authorizer oversees, helping to identify any performance patterns that may point to either deficient or exceptional authorizing practices.

Most importantly, these reports ensure transparency, which is necessary to help parents make informed educational choices. Annual public performance reports provide all stakeholders with a clear picture of charter school performance.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

5.1 Each charter school authorizer shall prepare and publish an annual performance report for each charter school in its portfolio.

5.2 Reports shall include academic, financial, and organizational performance information and shall be presented in a uniform format established by the [State Board of Education /Department of Education].

5.3 Reports shall be submitted to the State and made publicly available on the authorizer’s website.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION:

• State law requires a charter contract.
• State law requires performance frameworks.
• State law encourages replication of high-quality schools.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires every authorizer to execute a charter contract with each of its schools. The contract should be a distinct document—separate from the charter petition or application—articulating the rights and responsibilities of the school and authorizer and setting forth the performance standards and expectations the school must meet to earn renewal.

NACSA supports policy that requires each authorizer to use a performance framework for all its schools. These frameworks should reflect the academic, financial, and organizational performance expectations outlined in the charter contract and provide the basis for an authorizer’s renewal decisions.

NACSA supports policy that promotes the thoughtful replication of high-quality schools. Policies that encourage replication include using a differentiated application process designed for high-performing schools seeking to replicate and allowing successful charter operators to run multiple campuses under one charter. NACSA particularly recommends state policies that (a) explicitly encourage quality replication of successful schools and (b) require authorizers to evaluate prospective school replicators rigorously (and differently from initial charter applicants) based on their performance records, growth, planning, and demonstrated capacity to replicate high-quality schools.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Performance management practices are the foundation on which charter school accountability is built. These practices promote academic rigor and accountability for performance. Charter contracts and performance frameworks establish school performance expectations at the outset. They also provide the transparency and predictability that allow authorizers to fulfill their public obligations while focusing on results, instead of compliance-based oversight that can erode charter school autonomy.

With these tools in place to establish and enforce high expectations, an authorizer can identify the schools that are ripe for replication. State policies promoting quality replication make this possible by encouraging successful school models to flourish and serve more students while guarding against low-quality replication.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

6.1 Every charter school shall operate pursuant to a written charter contract that includes a performance framework with clear academic, financial, and organizational expectations.

6.2 Authorizers may adopt a differentiated application and approval process for the replication of high-performing charter schools, based primarily on demonstrated outcomes
and capacity to replicate.

6.3 The charter contract shall be a document separate from the charter application and shall govern performance expectations, accountability, and renewal decisions.

6.4 An authorizer shall have the authority to prevent a charter school from opening if the school fails to meet clearly articulated ready-to-open standards established by the authorizer.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: 

• State law ties renewal to performance standards.
• State law gives the authorizer explicit discretion to give conditional or shorter renewal terms based on specific criteria.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires a strong renewal standard. A strong renewal standard allows authorizers to hold schools accountable if they fail to achieve the outcomes in their contract by the end of their charter term.

This is distinct from a standard applied for charter revocation (closing a school during its charter term). Revoking a charter before the end of its term typically requires clear evidence of extreme underperformance, or violation of law or the public trust that imperils students or public funds. A renewal standard should be set much higher.

NACSA supports policy that gives authorizers explicit authority to issue short-term renewal contracts. These contracts provide an option for schools demonstrating promising trends but not yet meeting full-term renewal criteria.

Charters should not receive more than one short-term renewal per charter term. These short-term renewal contracts should have clear conditions regarding progress and next steps.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

A strong renewal standard allows authorizers to enforce accountability and close failing schools when necessary. It shifts the burden of proof from the authorizer to the school—making renewal something that is earned by schools when they demonstrate success.

In practice, statutory language around “reasonable progress” has led some courts and appellate bodies to keep demonstrably failing schools open, because the school argued that state law required the authorizer to keep them open if they could provide any evidence of “progress.” Success should be defined by the achievement of a goal, not merely the absence of failure.

This policy change would remove language from charter laws that makes it difficult to close failing schools. Authorizers can put in place strong performance management tools, but they are finally tested when an authorizer decides to close a failing school at renewal and that school is then actually closed.

The ability to offer short-term contracts can give struggling schools time to improve while avoiding disruptive closures. They offer a balanced approach, leveraging pressure to improve outcomes while maintaining accountability.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

7.1 Charter renewal decisions shall be based on evidence of performance, as established by the charter contract and authorizer-adopted performance framework, over the full term of the charter contract.

7.2 Failure to meet the performance standards set forth in the charter contract shall create a rebuttable presumption against renewal, subject only to narrow, evidence-based exceptions defined in law.

7.3 Prohibition on Authorizer Shopping at Renewal

(a) A charter school that is denied renewal, issued a notice of intent to nonrenew, or fails to meet renewal standards shall not seek to avoid accountability by transferring to, applying
to, or otherwise obtaining oversight from a different authorizer.
(b) No authorizer may approve a new charter, renewal, or transfer for a school described in subsection (a) without the express approval of the [State Board of Education / Department
of Education].
(c) Any approved transfer shall not reset performance histories, accountability timelines, or renewal terms, and the receiving authorizer shall assume full responsibility for enforcing all existing performance obligations.
(d) The [State Board of Education / Department of Education] shall establish procedures to ensure that renewal-related accountability determinations follow a charter school, notwithstanding a change in authorizer.

7.4 Authorizers may issue short-term renewal contracts to schools demonstrating promising trends but not yet meeting full-term renewal criteria. Such contracts shall include clear performance conditions, timelines, and consequences.

7.5 A charter school shall not receive more than one short-term renewal per charter term.

7.6 A charter school shall not change authorizers for the purpose of avoiding accountability, including denial of an application, corrective action, nonrenewal, or closure.

7.7 Any transfer of authorizer authority shall require approval by the [State Board of Education / Department of Education].

7.8 An approved transfer shall not reset accountability timelines, performance histories, or renewal terms.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law establishes a default closure mechanism.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires the state to establish a threshold of minimally acceptable academic performance for charter schools. Schools performing below this threshold at the time of renewal, or that remain below this level for a certain period of time, face closure as the default—or expected—consequence.

This default closure mechanism allows for exceptions. In some situations, the authorizer or state may decide to keep a school open based on special circumstances, such as an alternative school serving a specific high-risk population, known as alternative education campuses (AECs).

If a school falls below the minimally acceptable performance threshold, the expectation is that the school will be closed, but performance above that “floor” does not guarantee a right to stay open. A default closure policy should not be used to prevent authorizers from establishing and enforcing higher academic performance standards for the schools they oversee.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Default closure provisions address persistently low-performing schools. Barring special circumstances, it should be accepted and expected that charter schools that fail to meet a minimal threshold of performance will be closed.

Schools can still be subject to closure for failure to meet any higher expectations established by authorizers and agreed to in their charter contracts, but at a minimum, closure is expected when schools fall below a state’s default closure threshold. In essence, there is no charter school accountability if state law allows the lowest-performing schools to continue operating.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

8.1 The State shall establish a minimum performance threshold below which charter schools are subject to consideration of closure.

8.2 Persistently low-performing charter schools that fall below the minimum threshold shall be closed as the default outcome, subject only to limited, time-bound exceptions defined in law.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law allows for innovation portfolios or pilot programs within the charter sector.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that allows for the creation of innovation portfolios. These portfolios designate a portion of authorized schools that focus on dramatically different approaches to teaching and learning, with rigorous, yet alternative, expectations for student and school outcomes. Public transparency is essential to ensure families and communities understand the innovative approaches being tested.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

By facilitating pilot programs or small learning communities, authorizers can test innovative educational methods in controlled environments, refining them before broader implementation. This commitment to innovation encourages creativity within the charter school sector while maintaining accountability and oversight. Insights from successful pilots can inform decision making and shape educational policy.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

9.1 Authorizers may approve limited pilot charters or innovation portfolios to test new or novel educational models.

9.2 Such approvals shall include defined performance expectations, transparency requirements, and clear criteria for continuation, scaling, or closure.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: State law empowers authorizers to develop alternative accountability frameworks for
alternative schools.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that allows for alternative performance frameworks for alternative schools. This flexibility permits authorizers to develop frameworks distinct from state accountability systems, ensuring alignment with unique school goals while maintaining rigorous standards for literacy and numeracy.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

Differentiated accountability measures incentivize innovation and address the specific challenges faced by alternative charter schools.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

10.1 Authorizers may establish alternative academic accountability frameworks for charter schools serving specialized student populations.

10.2 Any alternative framework shall maintain rigorous expectations for student learning, be approved by the [State Board of Education / Department of Education], and be aligned to the school’s mission and student population. Schools operating under approved alternative frameworks shall be exempt from default closure and other accountability provisions that cannot reasonably accommodate their instructional model.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION:

• State law requires authorizers to implement sound and streamlined accountability practices.
• State law requires authorizers to balance compliance requirements with school autonomy.

WHAT THIS POLICY ACCOMPLISHES

NACSA supports policy that requires authorizers to implement an accountability system that streamlines federal, state, and local performance expectations and compliance requirements. Authorizers collect information from each school in a way that minimizes administrative burdens on the school, while ensuring that performance and compliance information is collected with sufficient detail and timeliness to protect student and public interests.

NACSA supports policy that requires authorizers to periodically review compliance requirements and evaluate the potential to increase school autonomy based on flexibility in the law, streamlining requirements, demonstrated school performance, or other considerations.

WHY THIS POLICY MATTERS

A core principle of authorizing is to uphold school autonomy by minimizing administrative and compliance burdens on schools. When authorizers only collect from schools the information they are not able to reliably get from other sources, charter schools can maintain their focus on quality outcomes for all students.

MODEL POLICY LANGUAGE

11.1 Authorizers shall implement accountability systems that streamline reporting and compliance requirements and minimize unnecessary administrative burdens on charter schools.

11.2 Nothing in this section shall limit the authorizer’s authority to enforce applicable law or intervene to protect student or public interests.