Guidance for the Process & Timeline

4-5 months prior to written proposal deadline

Purpose: Establish expectations of evidence of the school’s model, founding team capacities, and plan of execution.

The Request for Proposals (RFP) should communicate chartering priorities, provide clear application guidance, outline evaluation criteria - including focus on founding team capacities, and articulate proposal written prompts. Additionally, the RFP should specify key dates for meetings, capacity interviews, and public hearings.

3-5 months prior to written proposal deadline

Purpose: Communicate any authorizing priorities and provide an overview of the entire application process.

Information sessions offer potential applicants a clear overview of the new school process and key authorizer priorities. These sessions, which can be formal presentations or informal meetings with individual founding teams, provide essential background on charter school law, school finance (including CSP funds), special education, and other areas. The founding team can ask questions. While not a source for formal evaluation of capacities, authorizers can begin to gather information about a proposed school’s model and founding team. Recordings of virtual sessions and other guidance resources, like authorizer responses to questions, can be posted on the authorizer's website.

Learn more:   

• TEA provides a comprehensive webinar with slide decks and recordings 
• Hear how Rachel Hannah from the AZ State Board for Charter Schools uses the information sessions. 

8-12 weeks prior to written proposal deadline

Purpose: Gather data on total proposals and models that may necessitate specialized review and/or due diligence. 

 A charter school letter of intent (LOI) or notice of intent (NOI) notifies an authorizer of an organization's plan to apply for a charter to establish a new school. It includes basic information about the school’s mission, vision, educational model, community engagement efforts, involved individuals, and legal eligibility. Authorizers use NOIs to prepare for the application review process and to begin to understand each proposed school and founding team’s capacities. Depending on state laws, the NOI may be required or optional, though NACSA strongly recommends its use.

Learn More:

• NACSA’s sample Notice of Intent

8-12 weeks prior to written application deadline, following NOI submission

Purpose: Assess the founding team's capacities as they share progress on their school model development; seek clarity on the model and provide legal guidance.

This brief presentation by the founding team provides the authorizer with baseline information about the school’s model, founding team capacities, and development progress. Founding teams can also ask process questions and seek clarification of stated authorizer priorities.

Following the pitch session, authorizers ask clarifying questions but refrain from providing extensive feedback or evaluation at this stage. They share initial feedback on the NOI and pitch, address applicant questions, emphasize application criteria, and discuss how the NOI aligns with RFP priorities. Authorizers can also highlight specific legal or other requirements based on the proposed model. 

Learn More:

• NACSA’s New School Application: Pitch Meeting Guidance

This deadline may be outlined in statute. If not, consider what’s needed in the rest of this timeline, plus a 12- to 15-month RTO period, to set the submission deadline. 

Purpose: Gather written evidence of the proposed school model, founding team capacities, and execution plan.

The written application serves as a primary means for applicants to present detailed information. Authorizers provide prompts to elicit evidence from the founding team that aligns with established criteria. These prompts and criteria prioritize demonstrating the founding team’s capacities to open and operate a high-quality school. Evidence is provided through narrative responses, attachments such as resumes, and exhibits such as proof of community support.

Learn More:

• NACSA’s New School Application: Model Written Application
• NACSA’s New School Application: Application Evaluation Criteria

1-2 weeks after written application deadline

Purpose: Ensure all required components are submitted and provide an opportunity to address any missing elements.

Authorizers conduct a completion and eligibility check of the written application to verify it meets the completeness and eligibility criteria before sending it to the review team for full evaluation. This process may include a brief remedy period for applicants to submit any missing required elements, or an authorizer may determine an application is ineligible.

2-6 weeks after written application deadline 

Purpose: Ensure a thorough, unbiased evaluation of written applications.

Authorizers establish a diverse team of internal and external application evaluators with expertise in education, organization, finance, law, and experience that aligns with proposed models or populations served. These evaluators understand charter school autonomy and accountability principles. This evaluation team uses published criteria that prioritizes assessment of founding team capacities, provide training to ensure consistent standards and unbiased treatment, and maintain a conflict-free process. Reviewers independently rate written applications before convening to discuss strengths and weaknesses according to the criteria.

Learn More:

• NACSA’s New School Application: Sample Evaluation Rubric 
• NACSA’s New School Application: Review Team Makeup and Preparation

~1 week-3 months after written application deadline 

Purpose: Verify or seek additional data and information to inform founding team capacities, track records of successes/failures, and alignment with state law.

For authorizers, due diligence involves evaluating data from sources other than the applicant to inform the evaluation process, particularly with existing operators. It includes examining the academic, financial, and operational track record of existing operators and verifying information from new founding teams with no track record. This process can start immediately upon receipt of an application and continue up to the final decision. Authorizer due diligence often includes internet searches, contacting authorizers of operator’s schools, and accessing public information such as performance data and financial audits from state education websites. Site visits can also be a valuable source of information to better understand a school’s proposed model in action and is particularly useful to attend alongside founding teams to assess their understanding of the model.

Learn More:

• NACSA’s New School Application: Due Diligence Guidance

6-8 weeks after written application deadline (applicants provided up to 4 business days to respond)

Purpose: Resolve any contradictions or unclear details in the written application.

The authorizer may seek information about the application to avoid using Capacity Interview time for clarifications. This step focuses on obtaining specific details about the written application that may be contradictory or unclear. Clarifications allow applicants to address any written inconsistencies and ensure a fair assessment of the application.  

~6-8 weeks after written application deadline 

Purpose: Evaluate the team's ability to handle key challenges and make strategic decisions.

Challenge Scenarios are short case studies presented to the founding team with 2-3 questions. Teams have no more than a week to concisely respond. Teams can submit either a short video or a 1–2-page written response. Some founding team capacities are best evaluated by how they respond to certain situations, discern key information, and make critical decisions in service of the school’s mission, while recognizing their accountability to the public. Capacities such as Creative Problem Solving, Effective Decision Making, and Strategic Focus on Mission are commonly assessed through Challenge Scenarios. Authorizers may develop 3-6 scenarios based on their priorities but may only require teams to respond to a subset.

To streamline the application process, authorizers may combine Challenge Scenarios when seeking clarifications of the written application, during the Capacity Interviews, and/or maintain as a standalone request. 

Learn More:

• NACSA’s New School Application: Guide to Challenge Scenarios

~1-3 months after written application deadline 

Purpose:  Seek evidence of capacities and community response when the founding team is interacting with the community and/or one another.

Authorizers can gain valuable insights into the work of an applicant team by attending community meetings, observing board or planning meetings, and attending community events where the proposed school is involved. These firsthand experiences allow authorizers to validate and enrich the information presented in written applications and other data sources, while also providing opportunities for deeper inquiry of certain capacities that rely on founding team interactions. Furthermore, observing the founding team in action offers tangible evidence of their capacities in areas like Strategic Focus on Mission, Community Commitment, Coalition Building, and Effective Decision Making.

Learn More:

• Colorado Charter Schools Institute’s guidance to schools on incorporating community engagement into their school development process

~2 months after written application deadline 

Purpose: Assess the team’s capacities to open and operate the proposed school; evaluate the biggest challenge to the application or gap identified to date.

Capacity Interviews are a critical step in the review process, allowing evaluators to assess the founding team’s capacities both individually and as a cohesive group with complementary skills, experiences, and perspectives. NACSA recommends spending sufficient time with founding teams to thoroughly evaluate their capacities. While the most common interview is a single 90-minute session, more time may be needed to adequately assess the team’s readiness. Too often, valuable interview time is spent clarifying portions of the written application. NACSA advises authorizers to focus on assessing capacities during interviews and use other steps in the application process for clarifications.

In conjunction with the Capacity Interview, authorizers may identify a Challenge Scenario (introduced above) for the founding team to work through as part of the interview. This exercise allows the authorizer to delve deeper into areas of concern specific to the application. The question can focus on the school’s model, the founding team, or their ability to execute the model as planned. Framing the core question as a challenge helps simulate a team’s deliberation of the core issues they may face in early development or operation, while interviewers observe their discussion and interactions. Following the discussion, team members share feedback on both their approach and deliberations, providing the authorizer an opportunity to further assess the team’s capacities such as Reflective Learning and Effective Decision Making. 

Learn More:

• NACSA’s The Capacities of Charter School Founding Teams: How to Identify and Assess for School Success
• NACSA’s New School Application: Guide to Capacity Interviews in Action

~3 months after written application deadline 

Purpose: Opportunity for the decision-making body to hear presentations from the applicant and testimony from the community.

In some contexts, public hearings are required by law. Even when not mandated, most authorizers are public agencies subject to open meeting laws, making their decision-making meetings open to the public. These meetings provide a platform for applicants to present their proposals to the public, media, and commission or board members. They may also include a limited open comment session for attendees to offer support, opposition, or raise questions. Public hearings can occur before or after Capacity Interviews. Authorizing staff and leadership can use the information gathered as part of a comprehensive body of evidence to inform their recommendations and decisions. Authorizers need to minimize political influences during public hearings and be mindful of biases that could affect a fair evaluation of the application and founding team. 

Learn More:

• Engaging Stakeholders Through Authentic Community Meetings

~3 months after written application deadline

Purpose: Communicate updates to the application that occurred during the review period.

Founding teams often continue developing their school models, building their team, and executing start-up plans even while applications are under review. During this time, they may have updates that could impact their application, such as recruiting new board members, hiring staff, or receiving news about potential grants. Additionally, the school’s model may have evolved in important ways, or the team may have decided to change course. Any new information should be included in a brief memo (e.g., 1-3 pages) to facilitate brief review (not extensive re-evaluation) by the review team at this stage. The data included in the memo is important for understanding the details of the application, but equally important is the team’s responsiveness to changing circumstances, opportunities, and challenges. All of this is relevant to the authorizer’s assessment of the application and the team’s capacity to make sufficient progress.

~3.5 months after written application deadline 

Purpose: Finalize the evaluation of the application and make a recommendation to the decision-making body to approve or deny. 

Using all available evidence and input of the review team, the authorizer finalizes the evaluation and makes a recommendation to approve or deny the application to the decision-making body (e.g., board, commission, etc.)  This body ultimately decides whether to approve the new school application and proceed to the Ready to Open (RTO) and contracting phases with the charter school board of directors. Authorizers ensure these decisions are free of conflicts of interest and grant charters only to applicants who have demonstrated the capacities to succeed in all aspects of the school, consistent with the stated criteria. All applicants receive feedback on their applications. Successful applicants use this feedback to inform the RTO process; unsuccessful applicants use it to decide whether to resubmit in the future.