15. Multischool Charter Contracts and/or Multicharter Contract Boards Allowed

Alabama law provides that a single charter school board may hold one or more charter contracts. It also provides that each school must be separate and distinct from any others.

Alaska law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Arizona regulatory provisions regarding these arrangements require details for multi-site locations to be identified in the charter application. However, there is nothing in statute or regulation ensuring independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

Arkansas law makes it clear that each charter contract covers a single school site. However, it allows high-performing open enrollment charter schools to petition the authorizer for licenses to establish additional sites on existing charter contracts, with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each site.

California law allows a charter school to propose to operate at multiple sites within the school district, as long as each site is identified in the charter petition. Regulations provide for independent academic and compliance accountability for individual schools or campuses that make up a multi-site “statewide benefit” school authorized by the state. However, a multi-site school authorized by a local school or county school board is treated as a single school for all funding and accountability purposes.
California law does not explicitly address whether a single charter governing board may hold multiple charter contracts. However, under the state’s statutorily defined “permissive” Education Code, such a practice is permitted unless expressly prohibited, and such arrangements do occur in California.

According to Colorado law, a charter school network may hold one or more charter contracts through one or more authorizers for purposes of operating more than one school, may be governed by a single governing body, may use one or more charter contracts if the charter school network operates more than one school through the same authorizer, is authorized to make necessary and appropriate expenditures from any lawful source for central office purposes, and may allocate funds among the schools that it operates as permitted by law and consistent with the terms of the charter contract. The law requires independent accountability for each school.

Connecticut law prohibits these arrangements.

Delaware law allows independent public charter school boards to hold multiple charter contracts with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school in the following situation: highly successful charter school operators that submit an application to operate a charter school at the site of and serving students currently attending a charter school whose charter has been revoked, has not been renewed, or whose charter is on formal review and whose board has agreed to abandon their charter. If approved, the law allows these schools to open more quickly than the standard process.

The law is silent regarding these arrangements. In practice, DC PCSB allows charter schools to operate multiple campuses and requires independent academic accountability but not independent financial accountability for each campus.

Florida law indicates that a governing board that oversees multiple high-performing charter schools in the same district may consolidate those into a single charter. However, there is nothing in statute or rule that specifically requires each school to maintain independent fiscal and academic accountability.

Georgia law is silent regarding these arrangements, although some multi-school charter contracts and multi-charter contract boards have been established in practice.

Hawaii law allows multiple schools overseen by a single governing board, with all such schools still needing to report their own performance framework data.

The law allows high-performing charter schools to replicate under a single public charter school board. However, such replication can only happen after the charter school has gone through at least one successful renewal cycle.

Current law allows the first 15 charter contracts in Chicago to include multiple schools with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school, but prohibits such an arrangement in charter contracts beyond the first 15. No language exists to allow charter contracts outside the city of Chicago to include multiple schools.

Indiana law provides that an organizer may hold one or more charter contracts and that each charter school that is part of a charter contract must be separate and distinct from any other charter school.

A charter school contract may be amended to govern multiple charter schools operated by the same applicant and approved by the state board. However, each charter school that is part of a charter school contract shall be separate and distinct from any other charter school governed by the contract.
The law provides that multiple charter schools operating under a single charter school contract shall be required to report their performance data as separate, individual schools, with each charter school held independently accountable for performance.

Kansas law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Louisiana law allows charter schools that have a letter grade designation of an A or B and have met the criteria for automatic renewal to open and operate two additional schools serving the same grade levels and the same enrollment boundaries as defined in the charter agreement without formal application to the authorizer. Instead, the law requires the schools to provide a notice of intent to their authorizers. The law requires authorizers to enter into a charter agreement for such additional schools.

Statute allows both multi-school contracts and multi-charter contract boards. It also makes clear that any charter school that contains multiple campuses operating under a single charter contract or overseen by a single governing board must report the performance of each campus and hold them independently accountable for its performance.

Maryland law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Massachusetts law allows the state board of education to approve applications for replication schools received from those with a record of operating at least one school or similar program with demonstrated academic success and organizational viability, with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

Per statute, a charter school applicant can request to be approved to operate the same grade levels at more than one site, but there is no fiscal and academic accountability for each site.

Minnesota law allows authorizers to permit a school that meets certain criteria to expand operation to additional school sites as approved by the state commissioner following the submission of a supplemental affidavit. These additional sites however, are considered additional campuses of a given school, not separate schools.
The state department of education allows each individual campus to receive separate federal charter start-up funds and requires that the contract between the authorizer and the charter school include specific fiscal and academic accountability measures for each campus. While under one charter, each campus that is self-identified as being distinct by the charter school receives its own site number from the state department of education and receives a separate rating under the state's accountability system.

The law provides that each charter school must have its own charter board, with such board only allowed to hold one charter contract.

Statute provides that a single charter contract may govern one or more charter schools and that a single charter school board may hold one or more charter contracts. It also provides that each school must be separate and distinct from any others and must report its performance as separate schools, being held independently accountable for its performance.

Missouri law is silent regarding these arrangements. However, such arrangements are happening in practice.

Nevada law allows charter boards to hold multiple contracts and requires independent accountability for each school.
Nevada law also allows public charter schools to consolidate and form a single charter school operating one or more campuses under a new charter contract. It does not require independent accountability for each school, though. However, the state must consider the academic performance of individual campuses before submitting any grant application that may result in funds being distributed to a school or its authorizer.

New Hampshire law is silent regarding these arrangements.

New Jersey rules include a definition of a “satellite campus” and allows schools to amend their charters to open a satellite campus, enabling high quality schools to expand their capacity to serve additional students by operating an additional facility. No language is provided regarding the independent fiscal and academic accountability for each campus.

New Mexico law is silent regarding these arrangements. In practice, the state allows independent public charter school boards to oversee multiple schools linked under a single contract, but does not require independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

New York law allows each school to be issued a charter as counted toward the cap with individual performance goals, but these can be under a larger charter agreement that involves the same board governance structure for more than one school.
New York law allows an education corporation to operate more than one school or house any grade at more than one site, provided that a charter is issued for each additional school or site with each charter issued and overseen in accordance with all requirements.

North Carolina state board polices include a definition of a charter school that is to be used in determining whether the status of a charter school or charter school applicant is either one school or actually more than one school and indicates that multiple schools may be approved for funding once such determination is made. In addition, although this information is not counted within this analysis (since these provisions are not codified in state law or state board policy), the application specifically seeks information for charter school replications as to whether the proposed charter school is to be governed by an existing charter school board or a new board. Thus, there are some vague references in state policy to these issues, although nothing specifically indicates that such schools must have independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.

Ohio law allows a single contract to cover multiple sites. But the law specifically requires that the contract be treated as a single school for report card and other purposes.
While the law is silent on whether a charter board can hold and oversee multiple charter contracts, it allows governing board members to serve on up to five governing boards simultaneously.

Oklahoma law provides that a charter contract may provide for one or more schools by an applicant to the extent approved by the authorizer and consistent with applicable law. An applicant or the governing board of an applicant may hold one or more charter contracts. Each charter school that is part of a charter contract shall be separate and distinct from any other charter school under the same charter contract.

Oregon law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Pennsylvania law requires that each charter school have its own separate charter contract and its own board of trustees and therefore prohibits these arrangements.

Rhode Island law is silent regarding these arrangements.

South Carolina law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Tennessee law is silent regarding multi-school charter contracts and multi-charter contract boards. In practice, some independent public charter school boards are overseeing multiple charter contracts.

Texas law and regulations allow an independent public charter school board to oversee multiple schools linked under a single contract with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school.
Texas law provides that approval of the commissioner is not required for establishment of a new open-enrollment charter school campus if: a charter holder has an accreditation status of accredited and at least 50 percent of its student population in grades assessed or at least 50 percent of the students in the grades assessed having been enrolled in the school for at least three school years; the charter holder is currently evaluated under the standard accountability procedures for evaluation and received a district rating in the highest or second highest performance rating category for three of the last five years with at least 75 percent of the campuses rated under the charter also receiving a rating in the highest or second highest performance rating category and with no campus with a rating in the lowest performance rating category in the most recent ratings; the charter holder provides written notice to the commissioner of the establishment of any new campus in the time, manner, and form provided by rule of the commissioner; and not later than the 60th day after the date the charter holder provides written notice, the commissioner does not provide written notice to the charter holder of disapproval of a new campus.

Regulations allow existing charter schools authorized by the state charter board to apply for up to three satellite schools by amending the original charter. Regulations also state that a satellite school shall be independently accountable for financial reporting and its own AYP report. These provisions aren’t applicable to schools authorized by local school boards or higher education institutions.

Virginia law is silent regarding these arrangements.

Statute provides that a single charter contract may govern one or more charter schools and that a single charter school board may hold one or more charter contracts. It also provides that each school must be separate and distinct from any others and must report its performance as separate schools, being held independently accountable for its performance.

West Virginia law does not contain any of the model law’s provisions for multi-school charter contracts or multi-charter contract boards.

Wisconsin law provides that a charter contract may provide for the establishment of more than one charter school and a charter school governing board may enter into more than one contract with an authorizer.
Wisconsin law provides that charter contracts must include a provision allowing the charter school governing board to open one or more additional charter schools if all of the charter schools operated by the governing board were assigned to one of the top two performance categories in the most recent school and school district accountability report. If the charter school governing board opens one or more additional charter schools, the existing contract applies to the new school or schools unless the parties agree to amend the existing contract or enter into a new contract. The law also requires independent accountability for each school.

Wyoming law is silent regarding these arrangements.