CER News Alerts Education
Reform E-Mail
CER CER
Publications
Once again, CER has studied and evaluated the language and effects of the now 40 charter school laws in the United States. As the number of laws has grown, so too has their complexity. Still, using consistent criteria, it is easy to separate the strong from the weak.
Strong laws foster the development of numerous, genuinely independent charter schools. They ensure there will be a plentiful number of autonomous public schools available to a wide array of children and families. It is very difficult to pass a strong law, and virtually no strong law was created without a fight of skillful negotiations.
Weak laws provide fewer opportunities for charter school development. Legislative language often constrains charter schools, forcing them to fit into existing educational structures.
Some laws are only moderately effective. In most cases, these laws are the result of a number of compromises. Many legislators in these states viewed these compromises in the law as a foot in the door. Indeed some — although they are few in number — have succeeded in improving their laws after some time has passed.
Charter schools offer alternative learning opportunities to many children who are otherwise under-served. Knowing what it takes to enact a law that actually yields numerous high quality charter schools is an obligation of policymakers, and a mandate for parents.
The nation’s first charter law was created in 1991. Since then the movement has experienced unprecedented success - and most recently - unnecessary disappointment. Why is it is that the nation’s two newest laws are among the weakest? Policymakers in Tennessee and Iowa had the opportunity to create laws modeled after some of the nation’s best; but they were influenced by the harsh effects of the new epidemic that is spreading throughout the country: Regulatory Fever.
Far too many states this year experienced some level of regulatory fever. California, Georgia, Illinois and North Carolina are just a few states where charter schools continue to be suffocated by the harmful effects of the fever. Instead of basking in the success of high student achievement and strong parental support, charter leaders are fighting to maintain the autonomy that was once their legal right. State boards of education, local boards, and even state Departments of Education are now taking the liberty of interpreting the law and creating new and unnecessary regulations that undermine a charter school’s success. Every week there are reports of the fever striking states with stronger laws. No state is immune from the attempts to slow the expansion of charter schools. Having a strong law today is absolutely no guarantee that it will remain strong in the coming years. The drive to resist rollback attempts and regulatory fever is probably as important as the push to create strong laws in the 11 remaining states.
The strength of legislation tells much about what is likely to happen in a given state. New Hampshire’s law has been given a low "C" based on its major components. But, if its law were to be graded based purely on implementation, the state would get a solid "F." Since the law was created in 1995, the state has yet to produce one single charter school. Local boards are the sole authorizer, but applications must first be approved by the town by popular vote AND the state board before an application can be formally approved. With this type of onerous approval process, charter schools in New Hampshire have never become a reality. Despite their valiant efforts to improve the law this year, charter advocates have been left to watch from the sidelines as other states receive funding to create strong, successful charter schools.
Conversely, Washington, DC boasts one of the strongest laws in the nation. With 39 charter schools, and 15% of the student population in charter schools, its success and health underscore the benefits of strong laws. The District, like many states, has its share of challenges with the usual bureaucratic tinkering, but DC’s crop has an open hearing from the District’s two chartering authorities, has permitted parents and companies to run schools, is given a substantial amount of funding and is autonomous from government entities.
Laws are judged not only on their intent, but also on their effect. Amendments and various modifications made since a law’s inception are carefully analyzed. Some states have fluctuated over the six-year period CER has been scoring. Most changes have given states a boost, but we’ve found recently that some changes have caused them to slide.
The grades and a sampling of the states they typify:
"A" These laws allow for a significant number of charter schools and contribute positively to their growth and development. Indiana, only one year since the law was created, has already seen ten charter schools open successfully. The law is ranked among the strongest because it allows for multiple authorizers, it provides professionals with an alternate route for certification, and it provides charter schools legal and fiscal autonomy.
"B" These laws also allow for healthy growth of charter schools but contain some significant provisions that may impede growth. California gets a "B" because its law provides for a strong appeals process and the potential for equitable funding. However, it fell four places in this year’s ranking because it enacted legislation that allows for more regulation, including a new three-tiered oversight provision which enables the district, the county or the state to request information from charter schools at a moment’s notice.
"C" These laws allow for an adequate number of schools, but normally pose significant challenges to sustaining a prolific and healthy charter environment. Georgia gets a "C" because despite having 36 charter schools, the law still limits authorization to school boards, and with recent legislation that removed the automatic waiver from state rules, charter schools in Georgia will now have to contend with more bureaucracy. Tennessee debuts as a low "C" with local board-only approval, limited autonomy, and a weak appeals process. The new charter law has a long way to go if the movement in Tennessee is to be sustained and successful.
"D" These laws largely allow conventional education agencies to regulate the establishment and operation of charter schools. While schools have opened under these laws, they are heavily regulated and are few and far between. An example of one of these very weak laws is Rhode Island, with a cumbersome approval process, no legal or operational autonomy, and a non-existent appeals process. The law was created back in 1995, yet the state has only 8 charter schools to show for itself.
"F" Iowa’s law comes in as a dismal "F," making it unlikely that genuine, autonomous charters will come to be. And then there’s Mississippi, which failed for the sixth straight year because it simply offers no real charter environment at all. Both are laws in name only.
1) It’s often harder to improve a law than to do it right the first time. Charter school caps in Michigan, North Carolina and Illinois have failed to be lifted in successive legislatures. Meanwhile, dozens of charter applications wait in the wings as waiting lists swell.
2) Once a law is passed, the challenge isn’t over. Unfriendly State Department of Education bureaucrats and school districts will – if they can – stamp out charter freedoms, without legislation. One way to avoid this is to carefully write the law to preclude additional oversight without a certain legislative procedure followed.
3) Multiple authorities lead to more and healthier charter schools. School board-only laws limit the nature and scope of charter schools, and often limit their innovation and funding. School boards have also proven to be lax about accountability.
4) Unions are not the leading impediment one might think. Unions often can find a negotiating chit to ease their opposition. School board associations, however, are another matter. Charter schools serve the same community as local school boards, and thus are perceived by many school boards and their associations as encroaching on their jobs. The increased school choice that charter schools bring to the community means districts no longer have the guaranteed funding of a captive student population. All of this competition spurs resistance from those who are unwilling to bear the scrutiny and accountability that competition brings.
5) Leaving anything to be "negotiated in charter" gives the sponsoring agency carte blanche and the charter school little legal autonomy. In such states where the phrase is found within the law, authorizers – normally school boards – use this discretion to over-regulate in the body of the charter contract.
This analysis provides a guidepost to what kind of charter activity is likely to occur under certain legislative conditions. While by no means definitive, it provides a useful yardstick against which to measure and fashion forthcoming legislation and amendments. A state trying to create a healthy supply of charter schools will know to steer clear of the roadblocks put in place by states on the weaker side of the continuum.
This document is intended to serve as a guide to both those evaluating their own existing charter laws against other states’ for the first time, and those revisiting them with an eye toward making potential amendments. It is also a primer to help charter proponents in the remaining 11 states work to get it right the first time.
Jeanne Allen, President
Anna Varghese Marcucio, Director, External Affairs
January 2003
The complete publication of Charter School Laws Across the States, including state-by-state law profiles, is available for $39.95 (plus S&H) by calling the Center at (800) 521-2118. Click here to view the Ranking Chart (.pdf format).
###
The Center for Education Reform is a national, independent, non-profit advocacy organization founded in 1993 to provide support and guidance to individuals, community and civic groups, policymakers and others who are working to bring fundamental reforms to their schools. For further information, please call (202) 822-9000.
CER Home Page
CER News Alerts Education
Reform E-Mail
CER CER
Publications