NATionAl CHARTeR sCHool lAw RAnkinGs & sCoReCARd 2018

National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard

2018

The Essential Guide for Policymakers & Advocates

MARCH 2018

National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard--2018

The Essential Guide for Policymakers & Advocates

The Center for Education Reform

March 2018

Editor: Cara Candal, Senior Research Fellow Contributors: Jeanne Allen, Founder & CEO; Tim Sullivan, Chief Communications Officer; Max Eden, Manhattan Institute Design: Brandlift

Center for Education Reform 1901 L Street, NW Suite 705 Washington, D.C. 20036

? 2018 The Center for Education Reform. All rights reserved.

2

The Center for Education Reform

Table of Contents

Summary Introduction Purpose Methodology The State Laws

Scorecard, Analysis & Case Studies

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho

Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

Recommendations for State Policymakers

Model Legislation

Missouri Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island

4 6 7 9 12

South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Washington, DC Wisconsin Wyoming

80 86

National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard--2018

3

Summary

Charter schools are public schools of choice. The simple and original principle of charter schooling is that charter schools should receive enhanced operational autonomy in exchange for being held strictly accountable for the outcomes they promise to achieve. When charter school laws honor this principle, innovative, academically excellent charter schools flourish. In turn, schools that fail to produce strong outcomes close.

In 2018, there are almost 7,000 charter schools serving more than 3 million students in 44 states across the nation. More than 500,000 individual students are on charter school waiting lists across the country.

Charter schools nationally serve more minority students and more economically disadvantaged students than their district counterparts. Individual charter schools are more likely than district schools to serve concentrations of students who live in poverty.

Since the first charter schools were established in the 1990s, the movement has spread to every corner of the country, with concentrated growth in the nation's largest urban centers. Over time, demand for charters has skyrocketed, despite setbacks deriving from weak charter school policies, overregulation, and false perceptions of charter schools promulgated by opponents of school choice.

One of the reasons parents and students seek charters is because, when they work, they offer options that are distinct from those found in most traditional school districts. The innovations that charters are best known for are extended school days and years and, in some places, oneto-one tutoring. But charters innovate in many other ways as well: from developing unique approaches to teacher training to pioneering tools for personalized learning, many innovations that are now accepted as common were born in the charter sector.

Charter schools are popular and innovative. They are also effective. Gold standard (randomized control trial) research finds that many charter schools are closing achievement gaps that once seemed intractable.

A 2005 study found that charter middle schools in Chicago closed "just under half of the gap between the average disadvantaged, minority student in Chicago Public Schools and the average middle-income, non-minority student in a suburban district." Studies out of Boston show that "Charter school attendance has large positive effects for math and English state exam scores for special needs students" and that "attendance at one of Boston's charter high schools increases pass rates on the state graduation exam, facilitates "sharp gains" in SAT math scores, and doubles the likelihood that students will sit for Advanced Placement examinations."

And charters aren't only successful in urban centers. They are making a difference nationwide: A study of charter middle schools in fifteen states found a "statistically significant and positive impact for low-income and low-achieving students in math."

Despite this evidence of success, misconceptions about charter schools persist. In 2017, The Center for Education Reform (CER) compiled some of the most common myths about charter schools in the U.S. and countered them with facts (see next page).

4

The Center for Education Reform

Knowing these facts about charter schools is critical to understanding how to improve educational options for more children in the U.S. More importantly, understanding how to create strong charter public schools will ensure that more students have access to high-quality school options.

Charter school success depends on the policy environments in which charter schools operate. Some state laws and regulations encourage diversity and innovation in the charter sector by providing multiple authorizers to support charter schools and allowing charters real operational autonomy. As Michael Q. McShane has pointed out, where diversity exists, charter schools have the opportunity to innovate.

Too many states, however, hamper charter schools with weak laws and needless regulations. These make it difficult to distinguish charters from their district counterparts. Most states fund charter schools at only a fraction of what district schools receive, and a large number don't allow charter schools access to the same tax bases that support district schools. Where this is the case, charter schools become a line item in state budgets, vulnerable to political whims.

Weak charter school laws have proven that when we apply the same old rules to district and charter schools, we get more of the same. Overregulation and underfunding force charters to behave as district schools by another name. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow charters the room to innovate and succeed so that they could, in turn, help district schools subvert the status quo?

Since 1996 CER has researched, analyzed and ranked state charter school laws in an attempt to demonstrate how weak charter school laws create weak charter schools. These findings consider not only the content of each law, but also how the law impacts charter schools on the ground: How robust is the charter sector in each state? How diverse are the schools? To what extent do burdensome regulations prevent charters from doing anything meaningfully different?

As in years past, the national rankings carefully consider the impacts of overregulation, particularly on innovations in teaching and learning. And this year's National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard goes a step further, providing case study examples of how regulations and other aspects of poorly conceived charter school policies impact charter operators and students. In addition to these case studies, CER also provides model legislation for policymakers to consider when crafting or amending charter school laws and regulations.

With this important guide, there is evidence-rich feedback and guidance to policymakers. With feedback and guidance, change is possible.

? Charter schools represent the "privatization" of education.

? Charter schools are unaccountable to the public.

? Charter schools "cream" the most able students.

? Charter schools produce "mixed" or "poor" academic outcomes.

? Charters schools "drain" resources from districts.

? Charter schools are public schools of choice.

? Charter schools are held to a higher standard of accountability than district schools, in exchange for certain autonomies.

? Charter schools serve more poor, minority and economically disadvantaged students than district schools.

? Gold standard research shows that charter schools produce superior academic outcomes, especially in urban centers.

? Charter schools operate on smaller budgets than district schools, and they do more with less.

National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard--2018

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download