0

Alabama has no charter laws. The state could create high quality choice options for students by permitting charters, without arbitrarily capping establishment, and by clearly defining the threshold for charter expansion/replication.

1

The State does not have a cap on the number of charter schools, but in order for a charter school to be approved the local school board, state Board of Education, and Early Development must approve the application. The district appears to be the only authorizer and the performance threshold for charter expansion is unclear. In order to allow for more, high quality choice options for students, Alaska should allow for additional non-district authorizers and create a clear link between demonstrated success and charter expansion/replication.

2

Arizona does not place a cap on charter establishment and allows multiple, non-district charter school authorizers. To increase the quality of choices for parents and students, Arizona should set a high threshold for charter replication/expansion and implement a fast-track process for high-performing charters to replicate and expand.

2

Arkansas state law places a cap on charter establishment, however, the cap is automatically increased by five whenever the number of charters available is within two charters of meeting the existing cap. The State Board of Education has some chartering authority and a charter school may petition the Board for additional licenses to open charter schools if the school has demonstrated student achievement and meets other requirements. In order to ensure quality school choice options, the State should set clear, high threshold for charter expansion and renewal.

0

California has a statutory cap on the number of charter schools that can operate during a given school year. The cap increases annually by 100 schools and currently stands at 1,550 schools for the 2012-2013 school year. With 1,065 charters currently operating in California, overall charter school growth is not immediately affected by the cap. The establishment of start-up, expansion, and conversion charter schools, however, all count against the cap without exception. While multiple authorizers exist in the state--including local districts, counties, and the state department of education--the threshold for establishing new charters does not require an objective demonstration of success. California should shift its focus to the performance of public charter schools instead of setting an arbitrary cap that does not exempt conversions and charters with multiple school sites. In order to increase the quality of school choice for California students, the state should eliminate the hard cap on charter establishment, define a clear threshold for charter replication or expansion, and award high-performing charters a priority authorization process.

1

Colorado law does not have cap the number of allowed charters in the state. Colorado empowers both local education authorities and a statewide entity to authorize charter schools, however, some LEA's have exclusive authority to authorize in their districts. Colorado law is silent on additional requirements for replication. Colorado should empower the statewide charter entity to authorize anywhere in the state and articulate a threshold for charter expansion.

1

Connecticut has an enrollment cap, but does not appear to have a cap on the actual number of charter schools. The state is the sole authorizer and there is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charters. Connecticut could ensure high quality school choice options by setting a clear performance threshold for charter replication and implementing a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters.

2

Delaware no longer has a cap on the number of charter schools that may be established, however, the State does allow a local school board and the State Department of Education to limit the number of charter applications it will consider in a year. The State allows both local school boards and the State Department of Education to authorize charter schools. There is no clear threshold for charter school expansion and no fast-track process for authorization of high-performing charters. Delaware could allow for more high quality options for students by dictating a clear performance threshold for charter expansion and implementing a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools.

4

The District has a cap on the number of new charter schools at 10 per authorizer per year. Given the District's size, however, the cap does provide sufficient room for growth of new charter operators. Importantly, the cap also does not apply to new campuses; established charter operators are able to open an unlimited number of new campuses throughout the District, limited only by authorization by the DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB), an independent authorizing body and the District's only authorizer. The PCSB also reviews performance when considering expansion/replication requests and only approves schools that can demonstrate success. The PCSB introduced a fast track process this year for authorization/replication of high-performing charters, which allows schools to open in a shorter timeframe.

2

Florida law does not expressly place any limits on charter school establishment, however local school boards are the primary "sponsors" of charter schools (with very narrow exceptions). This serves as a de facto cap, but it is mitigated by the ability of denied applicants to appeal to the state board. In practice, Florida has grown its charter options steadily; according to state officials, Florida is third in the country in number of charter schools and number of charter students. The legislature established a statewide authorizer, but that statute was declared unconstitutional. There is an expedited process for high-performing charters, but these schools are only allowed to expand at a rate of one school per year. To strengthen the availability of quality school options for parents and students, the state should pursue a constitutional amendment to allow for statewide authorization, and should remove any caps on charter expansion while setting a high threshold for performance for schools that want to replicate and expand.

2

In addition to having local school district authorizers, Georgia voters recently passed a constitutional amendment to provide for a state charter school authorizer. While the state does not have a cap on the number of charter schools, it should provide more high quality school choice options for its students by setting a high threshold for charter replication and expansion, and by adopting a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

3

Hawaii does not have a cap on charter schools. State law establishes the state public charter school commission, a statewide authorizer, and provides for additional authorizers to operate within Hawaii. When renewing charters, authorizers are required to base their decisions on evidence of the schools' performance. For Hawaii could create more, high quality choice options for students it should adopt a fast track authorization process, which the state currently lacks.

1

Idaho removed its caps on charter school establishment in 2012. The State allows both school districts and the State's Public Charter School Commission charter authorizing authority. Idaho could provide more high-quality school choice options to its students by removing its cap on charter establishment and requiring a demonstration of success for charter expansion/replication.

0

Illinois caps charter establishment at 120 schools for the entire state. While the state does provide for charter renewal criteria, it does not clearly require a demonstration of success for charter replications and expansions. The state's Charter School Commission has statewide chartering jurisdiction and authority. Illinois could provide greater choice options within its public school system by removing its arbitrary cap on charter establishment and requiring a clear showing of successful performance for charter school replications.

2

Indiana state law does not place a cap on charter school growth. State law allows for any of the following entities to authorize charter schools: governing body, state educational institution, executive of a consolidated city, charter board, and/or a nonprofit college or university. There are some performance standards in place for renewal, but the threshold is not high. The state can ensure high quality school choice options by heightening replication standards and implementing a fast track authorization process.

0

Iowa only allows conversion charter schools - currently there are only 8 conversion charter schools in the state. To convert a charter school, at least 50% of teachers and 50% of parents must request charter conversion through application to their local school board. The board may approve or deny the request; applicants can appeal to the state board if the local board denies the application. The state board must approve all charter conversions. Two or more school districts and an area education agency may jointly apply to form an innovation school, but this is different from a charter school. Iowa must empower parents with more options. The state should allow new, start-up charter schools authorized by an independent statewide entity, with a focus on quality of applicants and accountability for schools, rather than limits on the number of schools.

1

Kansas charter schools can only be authorized by local school boards (providing for a de facto cap) but there is no cap on the number of charters the state can have. There is no fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools. In order to provide for better educational options, Kansas should allow for non-district authorizers, and create a fast-track process for high-performing charter schools.

0

Kentucky has no laws allowing charter schools. In order to give students more choice, Kentucky must establish charter laws without any caps, allow non-district authorizers, include a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters, and set a high threshold for replication and expansion.

2

In 2009, Louisiana lifted its cap on charter schools. There are five possible types of charters in the state; authorization by local districts or the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education depends on the type of charter. Though Louisiana does not have an explicit threshold concerning replication/expansion, it requires demonstration of success. To expand school options for students, the state should implement a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters and set a clear and high threshold for replication/expansion.

2

In Maine, local school boards and the State Charter Schools Commission may authorize charter schools. However, the Commission may not approve more than 10 charter schools in its first 10 years. Maine has established state chartering authority within the last two years. The state could ensure high quality school choice options by establishing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charter schools with high standards for expansion.

1

In Maryland, there is no cap on charter school establishment. However, local school boards are the primary authorizers for charter schools - only under limited circumstances may the State Board of Education authorize a charter. In general, the State Board of Education serves in an appeal capacity where applicants are denied charters at the local level. There is no requirement of success for charter expansions/replications. Maryland should establish multiple authorizers, set a high threshold for replication, and create a fast track authorization and renewal process for high performing charter schools.

2

Massachusetts caps the number of charter schools that may be established at 120. However, the State allows some flexibility for charter applicants that meet certain criteria - including demonstrated academic success. The State Board is the sole charter authorizer. Demonstration of success criteria is mentioned in the renewal process but not expressly for charter expansion. Massachusetts could create more, high quality choice options for students by removing its cap on charters, expressly tying charter replication/expansion to a demonstration of academic success, and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

1

Michigan allows multiple charter school authorizers. However, the state has some limits on charter establishment. Currently, the number of charters that can be established each year by state public universities is limited. This cap expires on December 31, 2014. The state could improve to a 4 by removing all caps, implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charter schools and setting high standards for school expansion.

3

Minnesota has no cap on charters and allows multiple, non-district authorizers. There is a high-threshold for replication/expansion for schools, but there is no fast-track authorization process. The state could improve to a "4" by implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

0

Mississippi only allows charter schools that have been converted from low-performing traditional public schools by parents' choice. Otherwise, charter schools cannot be opened in the state. Furthermore, a cap exists such that only twelve conversion charter schools maximum can exist within Mississippi until 2016 - these charters may not begin operation until 2013. While Mississippi has charter approval standards that consider student achievement, there is no clear demonstration requirement for granting charter expansions/replications. The State could provide high-quality school options for its students by removing its arbitrary cap on charter establishment, including allowing charter establishment outside of conversions, and setting a clear standard for charter expansion/replication.

2

In 2012, Missouri modified but did not entirely remove its caps on charter establishment. Previously, only urban districts could have charters, but new legislation provided for charter establishment in all unaccredited districts, provisionally accredited districts, and any district in the state with the local school board serving as a sponsor. Missouri now allows a variety of authorizers to sponsor charter schools, including community colleges, 2-year vocational or technical schools, and the newly established Missouri Charter Public School Commission, as well as an expansion among the kinds of universities and the geographic areas in which they can charter. Additionally, Missouri created a fast track system for charter expansion. Missouri could increase the number of high-performing charter schools across the state by ensuring there are high standards for replication and expansion of existing charter schools.

0

Montana does not have a state charter school statute. The state board of education established a rule allowing districts to apply for the creation of a charter school within the district. There is no authorization for this in state statutes, however, beyond the basic authority granted to the state board of education. Moreover, the rule does not truly authorize the establishment of a charter school; the school created would be completely governed by the district and subject to the same rules and requirements of traditional public schools, including collective bargaining, and yet would also not be subject to any definition of accountability. Without autonomy and accountability, these schools, if any existed, would not be considered public charter schools in the traditional sense.

0

Nebraska does not have a charter school law. The state could provide more school choice options by allowing charter establishment without an arbitrary cap on establishment, and by requiring a demonstration of success for charter replications/expansions.

1

Nevada state law sets no explicit cap for charter schools to expand; however, existing public schools are not allowed to become charter schools. Additionally, there is no streamlined, expedited process for high-performing charters to expand. The State has multiple authorizers: local school boards, higher education institutions and the State Public Charter School Authority. To strengthen quality choice options for parents and students, Nevada should prohibit any cap on charters, and establish a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters, setting a high threshold for expansion.

1

New Hampshire effectively has one charter authorizer - the state board of education. There are two routes for approval - 1) charter applicants can apply through the local school board, which, if it approves the application, sends it to the state board of education for authorization; or 2) charter applicants may apply directly to the state board for authorization. Past-performance may be considered in the charter application process, however there is no expedited authorization process for high-performers. Once authorized, charter schools serve as their own LEA, even when approved through a traditional district LEA. New Hampshire could create more, high quality choice options for students by establishing a dedicated statewide charter authorizer and/or allowing other entities to authorize charter schools. New Hampshire could also set a high threshold for replication/expansion of charters and implement an expedited authorization process for high-performing charters.

4

New Jersey does not have a cap on charter establishment and has one, non-district authorizer in the State's Department of Education. The state sets a high threshold for charter approval and replication by considering a number of factors including student achievement, student growth and fiscal standards. Using the recently adopted 'performance framework' , the state has instituted a clear mechanism for assessing school performance and establishing closure triggers and protocols for low-performing charters. Additionally, the Department of Education has implemented a fast-track charter authorization process for existing operators with demonstrable experience. The state should formally adopt the proposed regulations that would codify this fast-track authorization process for high performing charters.

0

Although New Mexico provides for authorization by a commission in addition to LEA authorizers, state law caps the number of public charter schools at fifteen schools per year with a five-year cap of 75. Slots not filled within a five-year period rolled over to the next five years. New Mexico should remove its arbitrary cap on charter school establishment and instead focus on ensuring that charter schools and their authorizers are held accountable for performance. The state should also require that charters demonstrate success in order to replicate and implement a fast-track authorization process for replication/expansion.

0

New York should provide greater choice options within its public school system by removing its arbitrary cap on charter schools and creating a streamlined replication process for schools that can clearly demonstrate a track record of high performance.

2

North Carolina does not have a cap on charter establishment. Furthermore, the State allows local districts, the board of trustees of a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina, and the State Board of Education (SBOE) to act as chartering entities for preliminary approval, however, final approval for charter applications can only come from the SBOE. While the State does have some criteria for assessing charter performance, the link to charter expansion determinations is not clear. North Carolina could increase student access to high-performing school options by establishing clear performance standards for charter replication and expansion and by implementing a fast-track process for high-performing charters.

0

North Dakota does not permit charter schools, instead it opts for an open enrollment strategy. The State could create even better school choice options by permitting and not arbitrarily capping charter school establishment.

0

Ohio allows for multiple charter school authorizers, and contract renewal is contingent in some degree on performance. However, Ohio caps each authorizer at 100 schools. Instead, Ohio should eliminate this cap, and provide for a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools. Making those changes will allow Ohio to provide its students with more educational options.

1

Oklahoma does not place any cap on the total number of charter schools allowed, but it does significantly limit where charters may be established in the state. The state does not require a threshold for charter expansions/replications. To expand quality school choice options in the state, Oklahoma should establish clear performance standards for charter replication and expansion and allow a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools.

1

In Oregon, local school boards are the primary charter authorizers. The State Board of Education and certain institutions of higher learning may review and appeal a local school board decision, however these entities are not charter authorizers of first resort. The state does not require a clear threshold for charter expansions/replications. Oregon could provide better, high-quality choice options for its students by requiring a demonstration of success for charter expansions and by allowing fast-track authorization of high-performing charters.

1

Pennsylvania allows charter schools, but the state does not have an expedited authorization process for high-performing charter schools. Pennsylvania does not have a non-district authorizing body, but it does have a state appeal board. Pennsylvania could improve its charter schools by adding additional, non-district authorizers for charter schools generally, setting a high threshold for charter expansion and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

0

In 2009, Rhode Island raised its charter cap to 35. While this cap is more than 10 percent of all schools and has not yet been exceeded, it would hinder the state's ability to expand charters rapidly and reflects a maximum threshold for charter growth, rather than a focus on increasing the number of high performing schools. The State Board of Regents is the sole authorizer of charters and only authorizes after approved by a local school board or the state commissioner of education. There is no fast track process for high performing charter schools, though there is some accounting for demonstrated success in the chartering process. The State could create more, high quality choice options for students by removing its cap on charter establishment, clearly defining the threshold for charter expansion, and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

3

South Carolina allows two options for charter school authorization: the South Carolina Public Charter School District Board of Trustees and the local school board of trustees in which the charter school is to be located. The state does not place any caps on charter schools, and makes renewal of a charter contingent on student achievement. However, South Carolina does not have a fast-track process for authorizing high-performing charters and could provide more, high quality school options by implementing this process.

0

South Dakota does not permit charter schools generally - the State has plans to implement a pilot charter program solely for American Indian students. South Dakota could provide access to quality school options for all of its students by allowing charter schools generally, permitting additional, non-district authorizers, and setting a high threshold for replication/expansion for schools.

1

Tennessee removed charter caps in 2011. However, districts are the sole authorizers of charter schools except in the Achievement School District, which is a special program of the State Department of Education focused only on school turnarounds and not new school start-ups. Also, there is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charter schools. In order to increase quality school choices in the state, Tennessee should have additional, non-district authorizers and set a high threshold for replication/expansion of schools.

0

Texas permits either local boards of education or the State Board of Education to authorize open-enrollment charter schools. It provides a streamlined process for charter renewal and limits charter expansion to charter schools that can demonstrate success. However, Texas sets an arbitrary, statewide cap of 215 on the number of charter schools that can be in existence at any one time. In order to increase the high-quality school options available, Texas should remove the arbitrary cap on charter school establishment.

2

Utah does not place caps on charter establishment and allows charters to be authorized by local school boards, the State Charter School Board, and by the board of trustees of a higher education institution. In order to maximize the quality choices available to Utah parents, the state should set a high threshold for replication and expansion for all schools and create a fast-track authorization process for high performers.

0

Vermont is one of only nine states in the United States that does not have a charter school law. To strengthen the quality of choices for parents and students, Vermont must address charter schools through its state legislation. It should consider policies that do not put a cap on charters, enable non-district authorizers to start charter schools, expedite high-performing charters, and set a high threshold for replication and expansion of these schools.

1

Virginia has a de facto cap on charters in that districts are the sole authorizers. There is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charters. For Virginia to provide more high quality school choices, the state should allow non-district authorizers and set a high threshold for school replication/expansion. Additionally, Virginia should provide a fast-track authorization process for charters that have proven themselves to be high-performing.

2

Washington voters approved Initiative 1240 in November 2012, allowing public charters schools in the state for the first time. The state's charter statute establishes a statewide authorizer and allows local school districts to apply to the state board of education to become authorizers as well. Charter growth is capped at 40 total charters over a 5-year period, with a maximum of 8 charter schools to be approved in any single year (allowing for carryover from year to year). The state establishes a thorough application process, but does not set specific criteria for replication and expansion or a fast-track process for high-performing charter schools.

0

West Virginia law does not allow for charter schools. The state should increase the choices available to parents and students, first, by allowing charter school establishment, then, by establishing a charter authorization process without a cap on the number of schools, permitting additional, non-district authorizers, instituting a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters, and setting a high threshold for all schools' replication and expansion.

1

Charter authorizers in Wisconsin are limited to local districts, and, in Milwaukee, the Milwaukee city council, the University of Washington, and the Milwaukee technical college district board. While the state does not have a cap on charter establishment, petitions submitted to local district boards require teacher signatures (10% of the teachers in the district or 50% of teachers in a school). There is no fast-track process in place for high-performing charters, nor is there a high threshold for replication/expansion of schools. Wisconsin could create more high-quality options for students by allowing multiple authorizers and setting a clear performance standard for replication/expansion of schools.

1

Wyoming law places no caps on the number of charters that can be established, but districts are the sole authorizers for charter schools. The state's renewal criteria include student achievement considerations, however there is no clear threshold for charter replication/expansions. Wyoming could ensure high quality charter options for its students by allowing additional, non-district charter authorizers and setting a high threshold for replication of schools.

4

The District has a cap on the number of new charter schools at 10 per authorizer per year. Given the District's size, however, the cap does provide sufficient room for growth of new charter operators. Importantly, the cap also does not apply to new campuses; established charter operators are able to open an unlimited number of new campuses throughout the District, limited only by authorization by the DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB), an independent authorizing body and the District's only authorizer. The PCSB also reviews performance when considering expansion/replication requests and only approves schools that can demonstrate success. The PCSB introduced a fast track process this year for authorization/replication of high-performing charters, which allows schools to open in a shorter timeframe.

4

New Jersey does not have a cap on charter establishment and has one, non-district authorizer in the State's Department of Education. The state sets a high threshold for charter approval and replication by considering a number of factors including student achievement, student growth and fiscal standards. Using the recently adopted 'performance framework' , the state has instituted a clear mechanism for assessing school performance and establishing closure triggers and protocols for low-performing charters. Additionally, the Department of Education has implemented a fast-track charter authorization process for existing operators with demonstrable experience. The state should formally adopt the proposed regulations that would codify this fast-track authorization process for high performing charters.

3

Hawaii does not have a cap on charter schools. State law establishes the state public charter school commission, a statewide authorizer, and provides for additional authorizers to operate within Hawaii. When renewing charters, authorizers are required to base their decisions on evidence of the schools' performance. For Hawaii could create more, high quality choice options for students it should adopt a fast track authorization process, which the state currently lacks.

3

Minnesota has no cap on charters and allows multiple, non-district authorizers. There is a high-threshold for replication/expansion for schools, but there is no fast-track authorization process. The state could improve to a "4" by implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

3

South Carolina allows two options for charter school authorization: the South Carolina Public Charter School District Board of Trustees and the local school board of trustees in which the charter school is to be located. The state does not place any caps on charter schools, and makes renewal of a charter contingent on student achievement. However, South Carolina does not have a fast-track process for authorizing high-performing charters and could provide more, high quality school options by implementing this process.

2

Arizona does not place a cap on charter establishment and allows multiple, non-district charter school authorizers. To increase the quality of choices for parents and students, Arizona should set a high threshold for charter replication/expansion and implement a fast-track process for high-performing charters to replicate and expand.

2

Arkansas state law places a cap on charter establishment, however, the cap is automatically increased by five whenever the number of charters available is within two charters of meeting the existing cap. The State Board of Education has some chartering authority and a charter school may petition the Board for additional licenses to open charter schools if the school has demonstrated student achievement and meets other requirements. In order to ensure quality school choice options, the State should set clear, high threshold for charter expansion and renewal.

2

Delaware no longer has a cap on the number of charter schools that may be established, however, the State does allow a local school board and the State Department of Education to limit the number of charter applications it will consider in a year. The State allows both local school boards and the State Department of Education to authorize charter schools. There is no clear threshold for charter school expansion and no fast-track process for authorization of high-performing charters. Delaware could allow for more high quality options for students by dictating a clear performance threshold for charter expansion and implementing a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools.

2

Florida law does not expressly place any limits on charter school establishment, however local school boards are the primary "sponsors" of charter schools (with very narrow exceptions). This serves as a de facto cap, but it is mitigated by the ability of denied applicants to appeal to the state board. In practice, Florida has grown its charter options steadily; according to state officials, Florida is third in the country in number of charter schools and number of charter students. The legislature established a statewide authorizer, but that statute was declared unconstitutional. There is an expedited process for high-performing charters, but these schools are only allowed to expand at a rate of one school per year. To strengthen the availability of quality school options for parents and students, the state should pursue a constitutional amendment to allow for statewide authorization, and should remove any caps on charter expansion while setting a high threshold for performance for schools that want to replicate and expand.

2

In addition to having local school district authorizers, Georgia voters recently passed a constitutional amendment to provide for a state charter school authorizer. While the state does not have a cap on the number of charter schools, it should provide more high quality school choice options for its students by setting a high threshold for charter replication and expansion, and by adopting a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

2

Indiana state law does not place a cap on charter school growth. State law allows for any of the following entities to authorize charter schools: governing body, state educational institution, executive of a consolidated city, charter board, and/or a nonprofit college or university. There are some performance standards in place for renewal, but the threshold is not high. The state can ensure high quality school choice options by heightening replication standards and implementing a fast track authorization process.

2

In 2009, Louisiana lifted its cap on charter schools. There are five possible types of charters in the state; authorization by local districts or the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education depends on the type of charter. Though Louisiana does not have an explicit threshold concerning replication/expansion, it requires demonstration of success. To expand school options for students, the state should implement a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters and set a clear and high threshold for replication/expansion.

2

In Maine, local school boards and the State Charter Schools Commission may authorize charter schools. However, the Commission may not approve more than 10 charter schools in its first 10 years. Maine has established state chartering authority within the last two years. The state could ensure high quality school choice options by establishing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charter schools with high standards for expansion.

2

Massachusetts caps the number of charter schools that may be established at 120. However, the State allows some flexibility for charter applicants that meet certain criteria - including demonstrated academic success. The State Board is the sole charter authorizer. Demonstration of success criteria is mentioned in the renewal process but not expressly for charter expansion. Massachusetts could create more, high quality choice options for students by removing its cap on charters, expressly tying charter replication/expansion to a demonstration of academic success, and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

2

In 2012, Missouri modified but did not entirely remove its caps on charter establishment. Previously, only urban districts could have charters, but new legislation provided for charter establishment in all unaccredited districts, provisionally accredited districts, and any district in the state with the local school board serving as a sponsor. Missouri now allows a variety of authorizers to sponsor charter schools, including community colleges, 2-year vocational or technical schools, and the newly established Missouri Charter Public School Commission, as well as an expansion among the kinds of universities and the geographic areas in which they can charter. Additionally, Missouri created a fast track system for charter expansion. Missouri could increase the number of high-performing charter schools across the state by ensuring there are high standards for replication and expansion of existing charter schools.

2

North Carolina does not have a cap on charter establishment. Furthermore, the State allows local districts, the board of trustees of a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina, and the State Board of Education (SBOE) to act as chartering entities for preliminary approval, however, final approval for charter applications can only come from the SBOE. While the State does have some criteria for assessing charter performance, the link to charter expansion determinations is not clear. North Carolina could increase student access to high-performing school options by establishing clear performance standards for charter replication and expansion and by implementing a fast-track process for high-performing charters.

2

Utah does not place caps on charter establishment and allows charters to be authorized by local school boards, the State Charter School Board, and by the board of trustees of a higher education institution. In order to maximize the quality choices available to Utah parents, the state should set a high threshold for replication and expansion for all schools and create a fast-track authorization process for high performers.

2

Washington voters approved Initiative 1240 in November 2012, allowing public charters schools in the state for the first time. The state's charter statute establishes a statewide authorizer and allows local school districts to apply to the state board of education to become authorizers as well. Charter growth is capped at 40 total charters over a 5-year period, with a maximum of 8 charter schools to be approved in any single year (allowing for carryover from year to year). The state establishes a thorough application process, but does not set specific criteria for replication and expansion or a fast-track process for high-performing charter schools.

1

The State does not have a cap on the number of charter schools, but in order for a charter school to be approved the local school board, state Board of Education, and Early Development must approve the application. The district appears to be the only authorizer and the performance threshold for charter expansion is unclear. In order to allow for more, high quality choice options for students, Alaska should allow for additional non-district authorizers and create a clear link between demonstrated success and charter expansion/replication.

1

Colorado law does not have cap the number of allowed charters in the state. Colorado empowers both local education authorities and a statewide entity to authorize charter schools, however, some LEA's have exclusive authority to authorize in their districts. Colorado law is silent on additional requirements for replication. Colorado should empower the statewide charter entity to authorize anywhere in the state and articulate a threshold for charter expansion.

1

Connecticut has an enrollment cap, but does not appear to have a cap on the actual number of charter schools. The state is the sole authorizer and there is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charters. Connecticut could ensure high quality school choice options by setting a clear performance threshold for charter replication and implementing a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters.

1

Idaho removed its caps on charter school establishment in 2012. The State allows both school districts and the State's Public Charter School Commission charter authorizing authority. Idaho could provide more high-quality school choice options to its students by removing its cap on charter establishment and requiring a demonstration of success for charter expansion/replication.

1

Kansas charter schools can only be authorized by local school boards (providing for a de facto cap) but there is no cap on the number of charters the state can have. There is no fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools. In order to provide for better educational options, Kansas should allow for non-district authorizers, and create a fast-track process for high-performing charter schools.

1

In Maryland, there is no cap on charter school establishment. However, local school boards are the primary authorizers for charter schools - only under limited circumstances may the State Board of Education authorize a charter. In general, the State Board of Education serves in an appeal capacity where applicants are denied charters at the local level. There is no requirement of success for charter expansions/replications. Maryland should establish multiple authorizers, set a high threshold for replication, and create a fast track authorization and renewal process for high performing charter schools.

1

Michigan allows multiple charter school authorizers. However, the state has some limits on charter establishment. Currently, the number of charters that can be established each year by state public universities is limited. This cap expires on December 31, 2014. The state could improve to a 4 by removing all caps, implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charter schools and setting high standards for school expansion.

1

Nevada state law sets no explicit cap for charter schools to expand; however, existing public schools are not allowed to become charter schools. Additionally, there is no streamlined, expedited process for high-performing charters to expand. The State has multiple authorizers: local school boards, higher education institutions and the State Public Charter School Authority. To strengthen quality choice options for parents and students, Nevada should prohibit any cap on charters, and establish a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters, setting a high threshold for expansion.

1

New Hampshire effectively has one charter authorizer - the state board of education. There are two routes for approval - 1) charter applicants can apply through the local school board, which, if it approves the application, sends it to the state board of education for authorization; or 2) charter applicants may apply directly to the state board for authorization. Past-performance may be considered in the charter application process, however there is no expedited authorization process for high-performers. Once authorized, charter schools serve as their own LEA, even when approved through a traditional district LEA. New Hampshire could create more, high quality choice options for students by establishing a dedicated statewide charter authorizer and/or allowing other entities to authorize charter schools. New Hampshire could also set a high threshold for replication/expansion of charters and implement an expedited authorization process for high-performing charters.

1

Oklahoma does not place any cap on the total number of charter schools allowed, but it does significantly limit where charters may be established in the state. The state does not require a threshold for charter expansions/replications. To expand quality school choice options in the state, Oklahoma should establish clear performance standards for charter replication and expansion and allow a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools.

1

In Oregon, local school boards are the primary charter authorizers. The State Board of Education and certain institutions of higher learning may review and appeal a local school board decision, however these entities are not charter authorizers of first resort. The state does not require a clear threshold for charter expansions/replications. Oregon could provide better, high-quality choice options for its students by requiring a demonstration of success for charter expansions and by allowing fast-track authorization of high-performing charters.

1

Pennsylvania allows charter schools, but the state does not have an expedited authorization process for high-performing charter schools. Pennsylvania does not have a non-district authorizing body, but it does have a state appeal board. Pennsylvania could improve its charter schools by adding additional, non-district authorizers for charter schools generally, setting a high threshold for charter expansion and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

1

Tennessee removed charter caps in 2011. However, districts are the sole authorizers of charter schools except in the Achievement School District, which is a special program of the State Department of Education focused only on school turnarounds and not new school start-ups. Also, there is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charter schools. In order to increase quality school choices in the state, Tennessee should have additional, non-district authorizers and set a high threshold for replication/expansion of schools.

1

Virginia has a de facto cap on charters in that districts are the sole authorizers. There is no expedited authorization process for high-performing charters. For Virginia to provide more high quality school choices, the state should allow non-district authorizers and set a high threshold for school replication/expansion. Additionally, Virginia should provide a fast-track authorization process for charters that have proven themselves to be high-performing.

1

Charter authorizers in Wisconsin are limited to local districts, and, in Milwaukee, the Milwaukee city council, the University of Washington, and the Milwaukee technical college district board. While the state does not have a cap on charter establishment, petitions submitted to local district boards require teacher signatures (10% of the teachers in the district or 50% of teachers in a school). There is no fast-track process in place for high-performing charters, nor is there a high threshold for replication/expansion of schools. Wisconsin could create more high-quality options for students by allowing multiple authorizers and setting a clear performance standard for replication/expansion of schools.

1

Wyoming law places no caps on the number of charters that can be established, but districts are the sole authorizers for charter schools. The state's renewal criteria include student achievement considerations, however there is no clear threshold for charter replication/expansions. Wyoming could ensure high quality charter options for its students by allowing additional, non-district charter authorizers and setting a high threshold for replication of schools.

0

Alabama has no charter laws. The state could create high quality choice options for students by permitting charters, without arbitrarily capping establishment, and by clearly defining the threshold for charter expansion/replication.

0

California has a statutory cap on the number of charter schools that can operate during a given school year. The cap increases annually by 100 schools and currently stands at 1,550 schools for the 2012-2013 school year. With 1,065 charters currently operating in California, overall charter school growth is not immediately affected by the cap. The establishment of start-up, expansion, and conversion charter schools, however, all count against the cap without exception. While multiple authorizers exist in the state--including local districts, counties, and the state department of education--the threshold for establishing new charters does not require an objective demonstration of success. California should shift its focus to the performance of public charter schools instead of setting an arbitrary cap that does not exempt conversions and charters with multiple school sites. In order to increase the quality of school choice for California students, the state should eliminate the hard cap on charter establishment, define a clear threshold for charter replication or expansion, and award high-performing charters a priority authorization process.

0

Illinois caps charter establishment at 120 schools for the entire state. While the state does provide for charter renewal criteria, it does not clearly require a demonstration of success for charter replications and expansions. The state's Charter School Commission has statewide chartering jurisdiction and authority. Illinois could provide greater choice options within its public school system by removing its arbitrary cap on charter establishment and requiring a clear showing of successful performance for charter school replications.

0

Iowa only allows conversion charter schools - currently there are only 8 conversion charter schools in the state. To convert a charter school, at least 50% of teachers and 50% of parents must request charter conversion through application to their local school board. The board may approve or deny the request; applicants can appeal to the state board if the local board denies the application. The state board must approve all charter conversions. Two or more school districts and an area education agency may jointly apply to form an innovation school, but this is different from a charter school. Iowa must empower parents with more options. The state should allow new, start-up charter schools authorized by an independent statewide entity, with a focus on quality of applicants and accountability for schools, rather than limits on the number of schools.

0

Kentucky has no laws allowing charter schools. In order to give students more choice, Kentucky must establish charter laws without any caps, allow non-district authorizers, include a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters, and set a high threshold for replication and expansion.

0

Mississippi only allows charter schools that have been converted from low-performing traditional public schools by parents' choice. Otherwise, charter schools cannot be opened in the state. Furthermore, a cap exists such that only twelve conversion charter schools maximum can exist within Mississippi until 2016 - these charters may not begin operation until 2013. While Mississippi has charter approval standards that consider student achievement, there is no clear demonstration requirement for granting charter expansions/replications. The State could provide high-quality school options for its students by removing its arbitrary cap on charter establishment, including allowing charter establishment outside of conversions, and setting a clear standard for charter expansion/replication.

0

Montana does not have a state charter school statute. The state board of education established a rule allowing districts to apply for the creation of a charter school within the district. There is no authorization for this in state statutes, however, beyond the basic authority granted to the state board of education. Moreover, the rule does not truly authorize the establishment of a charter school; the school created would be completely governed by the district and subject to the same rules and requirements of traditional public schools, including collective bargaining, and yet would also not be subject to any definition of accountability. Without autonomy and accountability, these schools, if any existed, would not be considered public charter schools in the traditional sense.

0

Nebraska does not have a charter school law. The state could provide more school choice options by allowing charter establishment without an arbitrary cap on establishment, and by requiring a demonstration of success for charter replications/expansions.

0

Although New Mexico provides for authorization by a commission in addition to LEA authorizers, state law caps the number of public charter schools at fifteen schools per year with a five-year cap of 75. Slots not filled within a five-year period rolled over to the next five years. New Mexico should remove its arbitrary cap on charter school establishment and instead focus on ensuring that charter schools and their authorizers are held accountable for performance. The state should also require that charters demonstrate success in order to replicate and implement a fast-track authorization process for replication/expansion.

0

New York should provide greater choice options within its public school system by removing its arbitrary cap on charter schools and creating a streamlined replication process for schools that can clearly demonstrate a track record of high performance.

0

North Dakota does not permit charter schools, instead it opts for an open enrollment strategy. The State could create even better school choice options by permitting and not arbitrarily capping charter school establishment.

0

Ohio allows for multiple charter school authorizers, and contract renewal is contingent in some degree on performance. However, Ohio caps each authorizer at 100 schools. Instead, Ohio should eliminate this cap, and provide for a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charter schools. Making those changes will allow Ohio to provide its students with more educational options.

0

In 2009, Rhode Island raised its charter cap to 35. While this cap is more than 10 percent of all schools and has not yet been exceeded, it would hinder the state's ability to expand charters rapidly and reflects a maximum threshold for charter growth, rather than a focus on increasing the number of high performing schools. The State Board of Regents is the sole authorizer of charters and only authorizes after approved by a local school board or the state commissioner of education. There is no fast track process for high performing charter schools, though there is some accounting for demonstrated success in the chartering process. The State could create more, high quality choice options for students by removing its cap on charter establishment, clearly defining the threshold for charter expansion, and implementing a fast track authorization process for high-performing charters.

0

South Dakota does not permit charter schools generally - the State has plans to implement a pilot charter program solely for American Indian students. South Dakota could provide access to quality school options for all of its students by allowing charter schools generally, permitting additional, non-district authorizers, and setting a high threshold for replication/expansion for schools.

0

Texas permits either local boards of education or the State Board of Education to authorize open-enrollment charter schools. It provides a streamlined process for charter renewal and limits charter expansion to charter schools that can demonstrate success. However, Texas sets an arbitrary, statewide cap of 215 on the number of charter schools that can be in existence at any one time. In order to increase the high-quality school options available, Texas should remove the arbitrary cap on charter school establishment.

0

Vermont is one of only nine states in the United States that does not have a charter school law. To strengthen the quality of choices for parents and students, Vermont must address charter schools through its state legislation. It should consider policies that do not put a cap on charters, enable non-district authorizers to start charter schools, expedite high-performing charters, and set a high threshold for replication and expansion of these schools.

0

West Virginia law does not allow for charter schools. The state should increase the choices available to parents and students, first, by allowing charter school establishment, then, by establishing a charter authorization process without a cap on the number of schools, permitting additional, non-district authorizers, instituting a fast-track authorization process for high-performing charters, and setting a high threshold for all schools' replication and expansion.