9. Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions

Alabama law requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports and requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it using renewal application guidance provided by the authorizer.
Alabama law requires authorizers to have clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal decisions and to base decisions on evidence in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract.

Alabama law provides that a charter contract shall not be renewed at the end of the contract term if the public charter school fails to meet the performance expectations set forth in the charter contract or fails to attain the minimum state proficiency standard for public charter schools in each year of its operation and over the charter term, unless the public charter school demonstrates and the authorizer affirms, through formal action of its board, that other indicators of strength and exceptional circumstances justify the continued operation of the school. At the time of renewal, any public charter school that has received a grade of F on the statewide accountability system for all public schools or a grade of D or F for the past three most recent years shall be considered to fall below the minimum state standard.

Alabama law requires charter contract renewals to be for five-year terms, although it allows the authorizer to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of a charter school.

State law requires authorizers to provide schools with timely notification of potential revocation and due process, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing. It requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires authorizers to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records, and proper disposition of public funds, property, and assets.

Alabama requires special petition to the State Department of Education in order to transfer to another authorizer. The Department has the flexibility to grant or deny based on the best interest of students.

Alaska law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. Alaska law requires each charter contract to contain a termination clause providing that the charter contract may be terminated by the local school board for the failure of the school to meet educational achievement goals or fiscal management standards or for other good cause. It also provides that contracts may be for a term of no more than 10 years.

Per Arizona law, schools must apply for a renewal of their charter at least 15 months before its expiration. It also allows schools to apply for early renewal at least nine months before the charter school’s intended renewal consideration.
The law requires authorizers to make a renewal application available to schools facing renewal. ASBCS policies include detailed renewal application requirements for schools approved by them, including the ability to offer supplementary performance information and future plans. However, the law does not require authorizers to issue performance reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

Arizona law provides that an authorizer may deny a request for renewal if, in its judgment, the charter holder has failed to do any of the following: meet or make sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the performance framework; meet the operational performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plans; meet the financial performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plans; complete the obligations of the contract; or comply with the charter school statutes or any provision of law which the charter school is not exempt. ASBCS regulations note that renewals may be granted to schools based on assessment results, financial audit reports, enrollment reports, and complaint records.

The law allows an authorizer to revoke a charter at any time if the charter school breaches one or more provisions of its charter or if the authorizer determines that the charter holder has failed to do any of the following: meet or make sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the performance framework; meet the operational performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plan; meet the financial performance expectations set forth in the performance framework or any improvement plans; or comply with the charter school statutes or any provision of law which the charter school is not exempt.
The law also provides that in determining whether to renew or revoke a charter holder, the authorizer must consider making sufficient progress toward the academic performance expectations set forth in the authorizer’s performance framework as one of the most important factors.
Statute requires 20-year renewal intervals, with no ability to vary those terms.

Arizona law requires timely notification of potential non-renewal and revocation, including written reasons, with any such non-renewals and revocations occurring at a public hearing.
Neither statutes nor regulations detail school closure protocols, although revocation orders and surrender agreements issued by the ASBCS include such information for schools supervised by that board.
In reference to transfers, the law requires approval by the state superintendent of public instruction if a transfer is done after the beginning of a fiscal year. For other transfers, no state approval is required.
Overall, many of the pieces within this section have been implemented for schools supervised by ASBCS, but these policies are not required for all authorizers nor are they yet codified in Arizona law or Arizona Administrative Code.

Arkansas law requires the state department of education to conduct an annual evaluation of all charter schools, with core elements detailed including student scores, attendance, grades, discipline incidents, socioeconomic data, parent and student satisfaction, compliance with statutory reporting requirements, and other terms of the school’s charter.
Arkansas regulations state that each charter school must apply for renewal of its charter using a form and timeline prescribed by the state department of education's charter school office.

Arkansas law and regulations outline a transparent process for review and renewal and provide criteria for non-renewal. In addition, they require each charter school to establish the level of student performance that is considered acceptable for continuation or renewal.

Arkansas law provides that the terms of the renewal may be one year or multi-year, allowing up to five years for conversion charter schools and up to 20 years for open enrollment charter schools.

Arkansas law allows authorizers to revoke or deny renewal of a charter school and specifies that any decision made by an authorizer regarding the status of a school must be grounded in the best interest of students.

Arkansas law requires the authorizer to notify via certified mail of alleged violations of the school’s charter contract. As provided by Arkansas law, due process procedures include an opportunity for a hearing to the persons operating the charter school and to the parents of students enrolled in the school.

Arkansas law requires that all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with the state board stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Arkansas law and regulation detail information regarding school non-renewal or revocation issues in relation to disbursement of assets, parent notification, and student and record transitions.

California law describes generally the evidence basis on which authorizers must make renewal determinations, including “documented and clear and convincing data” and “information submitted by the charter school.” Although not explicit, the requirement of school-submitted information prior to renewal appears equivalent to a renewal application.
Recently enacted legislation reworked the renewal criteria and process for charter schools resulting in a three-tiered approach that provides a different process for high, low, and mid-range performing schools. It provided that high-performing charter schools (as defined in the law) shall be approved with streamlined renewal for five to seven years. It provided that low-performing charter schools (as defined in the law) shall not be renewed. It provided that other charter schools shall be renewed for five years.
Recently enacted legislation expanded the list of reasons for districts to deny charter school petitions. These reasons will now include the fiscal impact of the charter school on the district, although a district must also consider the academic needs of the students that a school is proposing to serve in its fiscal impact analysis. These new denial criteria would apply to all charter petitions for new charter schools as well as proposals by existing schools to add grade levels or school sites. Renewals of existing charters that do not propose grade levels or school sites would not be subject to these new denial criteria.
The law requires an authorizer to notify a charter school of potential revocation and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy identified problems, except in case of severe and imminent threat to student health or safety. It requires a public hearing prior to any revocation decision. In cases of non-renewal or revocation, the law provides for appeals to the county or state board of education for schools chartered by districts or county offices of education. The law also authorizes the state board of education to revoke a locally-granted charter under certain circumstances.

The law requires authorizers to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, or revocation decisions in a public meeting and to state reasons for all such decisions in writing.

California regulations establish a protocol for closing a charter school, and state law requires that a school closure protocol is an element of a charter petition.

Colorado law requires local school boards to provide an annual report on the performance of a charter school and to use such reports in renewal decisions. It also states that before a charter expires, the charter board must submit a renewal report and such report must be used in the renewal process. These provisions don’t apply to the state authorizer.
Colorado law requires charter schools seeking renewal to submit a renewal application.

The law requires authorizers to adopt and revise as necessary procedures and timelines for the charter renewal process. It requires authorizers to ensure that each of the charter schools authorized by them receives a copy of these procedures and timelines.

Colorado law states general grounds for non-renewal or revocation.

The law requires authorizers to consider in a renewal application the school’s performance and progress over the charter term.

For district-chartered schools, Colorado law provides that a charter may be renewed for successive periods. It does not define or limit the length of renewal contracts issued by districts. For schools chartered by the state institute, the law provides that charter contracts may be renewed for successive terms of up to five academic years and that a charter school and the institute may agree to extend the length of a renewed contract beyond five years for the purpose of enhancing the terms of any lease or financial obligation.

Colorado law provides that least 15 days prior to the date on which an authorizer will consider whether to revoke or renew a charter, the authorizer must provide to the charter school a written recommendation, including the reasons supporting the recommendation, concerning whether to revoke or renew the charter. It does not require authorizers to provide charter schools with the opportunity to respond.

The law allows schools to appeal a decision to revoke or non-renew the school to the state board of education.

Colorado law requires authorizers to make charter renewal, non-renewal, or revocation decisions in a public meeting and state reasons for non-renewal or revocation in writing.

Colorado law requires each authorizer to adopt procedures for closing a charter school following revocation or nonrenewal of the charter school’s charter. At a minimum, the law provides that the procedures shall ensure that:
• When practicable and in the best interest of the students of the charter school, the charter school continues to operate through the end of the school year. If the authorizer determines it is necessary to close the charter school prior to the end of the school year, the authorizer shall work with the charter school to determine an earlier closure date.
• The authorizer works with the parents of the students who are enrolled in the charter school when the charter is revoked or not renewed to ensure that the students are enrolled in schools that meet their educational needs; and
• The charter school meets its financial, legal, and reporting obligations during the period that the charter school is concluding operations.

Connecticut law requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it.  For such renewal applications, the law allows the state board of education to commission an independent appraisal of the charter school’s performance. 

Connecticut law provides that the state board of education may deny an application for the renewal of a charter if: student progress has not been sufficiently demonstrated, as determined by the state commissioner of education; the governing council of the school has not been sufficiently responsible for the operation of the school or has misused or spent public funds in a manner that is detrimental to the educational interests of the students attending the charter school; the school has not been in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; the efforts of the school have been insufficient to effectively attract, enroll and retain students with a history of low academic performance, students who receive free or reduced priced lunches pursuant to federal law and regulations, students with a history of behavioral and social difficulties, students identified as requiring special education, or students who are English language learners; or the governing council of the school has not provided evidence that such council has initiated substantive communication with the local or regional board of education of the town in which the school is located to share student learning practices and experiences.

Connecticut law also provides that the state board of education may, but is not required to, revoke a charter if a charter school has failed to: comply with the terms of probation, including the failure to file or implement a corrective action plan; demonstrate satisfactory student progress, as determined by the state commissioner of education; comply with the terms of its charter or applicable laws and regulations; or manage its public funds in a prudent or legal manner.
 
Connecticut law allows a charter to be renewed for up to five years. 

Unless an emergency exists, prior to revoking a charter, Connecticut law requires the state board to provide the governing council for the charter school with written notice of revocation reasons and an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with all requirements for the retention of its charter, including documentary and testimonial evidence to refute the facts cited by the state board for the proposed revocation. 

The law requires all actions regarding renewals, nonrenewals, and revocations to be made in a public meeting. 

Delaware law requires an authorizer to review the performance of the charter school and determine its satisfactory compliance with the law and its charter four years after a charter school has opened and every five years thereafter.
The law requires the approving authority to issue a charter school renewal report and charter renewal application guidance to any charter school whose charter will expire the following year. It requires the renewal report to summarize the charter school’s performance record to date, based on the data required by law and the charter contract and provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns perceived by the approving authority concerning the charter school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal if not timely rectified. The law provides the charter school with 10 working days to respond to the renewal report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.

The law provides that the renewal process shall, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the charter school to: present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the renewal report, supporting its case for charter renewal; describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school; and detail the school’s plans for the next charter term.

The law requires the renewal application guidance to include the criteria that will guide the approving authority’s renewal decisions. It requires the renewal determinations by the state department of education to be based on a school’s performance framework and the terms set forth in the charter contract. The law allows other approving authorities to choose to adopt the criteria utilized by the department. The law requires each approving authority to develop a rubric based on its criteria for evaluating renewal applications and provide this rubric to applicants as part of the renewal application guidance.

Delaware law requires the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the approving authority pursuant to the renewal application guidance issued by the approving authority.

Delaware regulation provides that state-authorized charters shall be renewed only if the school receives a satisfactory performance review, with the performance reviews conducted by the state department of education using the performance framework approved by the state department with the assent of the state board of education. This provision does not apply to charter schools authorized by local school boards.

Delaware law allows an authorizer to revoke a charter contract if the charter school, or its representatives, commits a material fraud on the approving authority or misappropriates federal, state, or local funds, fails to comply with its charter or fails to satisfy, in its operation of the school, its approval criteria.

The law provides that a charter school may be renewed for successive five-year terms of duration and allows an approving authority to grant renewal with specific conditions for necessary improvements to a charter school. Where a charter school has demonstrated an outstanding record of performance, the law allows an approving authority to grant it a renewal term of ten years. The law provides that any charter school receiving such an extended renewal term shall, at the midpoint of the ten-year charter, be subject to an annual performance and program evaluation that includes academic, financial, and operations data that looks back to all of the years of the charter up to that point. If, upon this evaluation, the approving authority determines that the charter school’s level of performance is deficient by renewal standards, the law allows the approving authority to initiate the formal renewal and non-renewal process.

The law requires the authorizer to notify the school of any violations and commence a formal evaluation. Delaware law allows the charter school to comment on the initial report of alleged violations at a minimum of 15 days prior to final review by the authorizer. If grounds exist for further investigation, the law requires the authorizer to hold a public hearing and allow the charter to respond to the alleged violations within the report.

The law requires the authorizer to hold a public hearing to decide the appropriate action regarding the charter. Regulation calls for a written final report in which comments related to actions and concerns are made public.

Prior to any charter school closure decision, the law requires an approving authority to have developed and utilize a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets in accordance with the requirements of the state’s charter school law and other applicable laws. It requires the protocol to specify tasks, timelines, and responsible parties, including delineating the respective duties of the school and the approving authority. In the event of a charter school closure for any reason, the law requires the approving authority to oversee and work with the closing school to ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students and parents, as guided by the closure protocol.

The law also requires that the transfer of a charter from one authorizer to another before the expiration of the charter term must involve a petition by the school or its authorizer to the new authorizer.

The law requires charter schools seeking renewal to file a renewal application 120 to 365 days before the expiration of the charter. The law states generally what charter school renewal applications must contain and mandates a renewal application timeframe. DC PCSB also issues renewal application guidance every year explaining the type of information schools can submit to support their record of performance and application for renewal.

The law sets forth general grounds for non-renewal and revocation, distinguishing between the two. The law directs the authorizer to approve a duly filed renewal application unless the authorizer determines that the school has met one of the stated criteria for non-renewal, in which case the authorizer shall not renew the charter.

The law requires renewed charter terms to be for 15 years, but subjects them to the requirement of a high-stakes review every five years.

The law entitles charter schools to an informal hearing, upon request, for any pending renewal or revocation decision. In the case of a proposed revocation, the law requires the authorizer to provide written notice to the charter school, including an opportunity for the school to request an informal hearing.

The law requires the authorizer to make all renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting and state in writing reasons for non-renewal or revocation. The law makes non-renewal and revocation decisions subject to judicial review.

In the event of a charter closure, the law requires the authorizer to develop, in consultation with a charter school's governing board, a plan for the orderly disposition of school assets. The law also requires the authorizer to arrange for the transfer and storage of necessary student records.

Florida law provides that when obligations established in the charter agreement are successfully accomplished (which includes consideration of the school’s performance and financial record over the course of the charter term), authorizers may renew charters.
The law provides that the authorizer shall make student academic achievement for all students the most important factor when determining whether to renew or terminate the charter. It also specifies that non-renewal can result from failure to participate in the state accountability system or failure to meet student performance requirements, inadequate fiscal management, material violations of law, or other good cause shown.

The law requires authorizers to terminate a charter if the charter school earns two consecutive grades of "F" unless: the charter school is established to turnaround the performance of a district public school; the charter school serves a student population the majority of which resides in a school zone served by a district public school that earned a grade of "F" in the year before the charter school opened and the charter school earns at least a grade of "D" in its third year of operation (this exception does not apply to a charter school in its fourth year of operation and thereafter); or the state board grants the charter school a waiver of termination if the charter school demonstrates that the learning gains of its students on statewide assessments are comparable to or better than the learning gains of similarly situated students enrolled in nearby district public schools. The waiver is valid for one year and may only be granted once. Charter schools that have been in operation for more than five years are not eligible for a waiver.

The law allows authorizers to grant renewal terms of up to 15 years. It also provides that schools that meet the definitions of being a high performing charter school are automatically renewed for 15 years.

Florida law states that prior to renewing or terminating a charter, the authorizer must notify the school of the proposed action in writing, stating the authorizer’s grounds. The law allows the school to request a formal hearing an administrative law judge assigned by the state division of administrative hearing. In the case of non-renewal or termination, the law requires the authorizer to provide a letter stating the action, and the school can appeal to the District Court of Appeals with jurisdiction. State rules clarify that all such hearings are public meetings.

Florida law establishes a dissolution and closure process that addresses the redistribution of funds, treatment of debts and encumbrances, and the reassignment of students.

Under Georgia law, charter schools seeking renewal must submit a petition to their authorizer, comply with many of the petition requirements applicable to those seeking an initial charter, and provide an executive summary giving an overview of the school’s performance from the school’s perspective and information demonstrating its success. The law also requires renewal applications to include a copy of the school’s original petition with all proposed changes highlighted. The law requires authorizers to base their renewal decisions on this record.
Georgia regulation provides that authorizers may develop policies to provide for an expedited review process for high quality charter school renewal, expansion, and replication.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may terminate a charter if a majority of the parents or guardians of students enrolled at or a majority of the faculty and instructional staff employed at the charter school vote by a majority vote to request the termination of its charter at a public meeting called with two weeks' advance notice and for the purpose of deciding whether to request the state board to declare the charter null and void.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may also terminate a charter if, after providing reasonable notice to the charter school and an opportunity for a hearing, the state board finds a failure to comply with any recommendation or direction of the state board with respect to a certain section of state law, a failure to adhere to any material term of the charter, including but not limited to the performance goals set forth in the charter, a failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, a violation of applicable federal, state, or local laws or court orders, the existence of competent substantial evidence that the continued operation of the charter school would be contrary to the best interests of the students or the community, or a failure to comply with any provision described in state law.

Georgia law provides that the state board of education may also terminate a charter upon the written request of a local board for termination of a charter for a local charter school located within its school system if, prior to making such request, the local board provided reasonable notice to the charter school and an opportunity for a hearing, and determined the existence of any of the grounds described in state law.

Georgia law requires authorizers to base their renewal decisions on evidence presented in the renewal application and provides authorizers with discretion in the length of the renewal term offered (not to exceed 10 years).

Consistent with Georgia law relating to public entities, charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions must be made at a public meeting. The law requires authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.
Georgia law provides a dissolution process that ensures timely notification of parents regarding closure and alternate school options, the handling of school assets and unencumbered funds.

Hawaii law requires that authorizers must issue a performance report and charter contract renewal application guidance to any school whose contract is in its final contract year which must include the school’s performance record to date and any weaknesses or concerns that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal. The law requires charter boards to submit any corrections or clarifications for the report. It also requires them to submit their renewal applications by no later than 30 days after the performance report is issued. The law states clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal as grounded in the performance framework detailed in the contract. It states that contracts may be renewed for successive five-year terms, although it allows authorizers to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of the school.
The law allows authorizers to revoke the charter for failure to meet the state student performance standards, fiscal irresponsibility, or serious student or employee health or safety deficiencies. The law requires authorizers to develop revocation and non-renewal processes that provide timely notification and time for reasonable responses. It requires that decisions be made in a public hearing with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing. The law requires authorizers to report such actions to the state board of education along with assurances of law compliance.
The law requires authorizers to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.
The law prohibits transfer of charter contracts to another authorizer unless the state board of education approves the transfer.

No later than November 15 of each year, the law requires the authorized chartering entity to issue a public charter school performance report and charter renewal application guidance to any public charter school whose charter will expire the following year. It requires the performance report to summarize the public charter school's performance record to date, based upon the data required by the state’s charter law and the performance certificate and provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns determined by the authorized chartering entity concerning the public charter school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal, if not timely rectified. The law provides the public charter school with thirty days to respond to the performance report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.
The law provides that the renewal application guidance shall, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the public charter school to present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report, supporting its case for charter renewal and describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school. The law provides that the renewal application guidance shall include or refer explicitly to the criteria that will guide the authorized chartering entity's renewal decisions, which shall be based on independent fiscal audits and the performance framework set forth in the performance certificate.

No later than December 15, the law requires the governing board of a public charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the authorized chartering entity pursuant to the renewal application guidance issued by the authorized chartering entity.

The law includes a differentiated process for the renewal of high performing charter schools.

The law requires an authorized chartering entity to renew any charter in which the public charter school met all of the terms of its performance certificate at the time of renewal. It provides that an authorized chartering entity may renew or nonrenew any charter in which the public charter school failed to meet one or more of the terms of its performance certificate.

The law provides that a charter may be revoked by the authorized chartering entity if the public charter school has failed to meet any of the specific, written conditions for necessary improvements established pursuant to certain provisions of state law by the dates specified.

In making charter renewal decisions, the law requires every authorized chartering entity to ground its decisions in evidence of the school's performance over the term of the performance certificate in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the performance certificate, ensure that data used in making renewal decisions are available to the school and the public, and provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision.

Following the initial three year term, the law provides that an authorized chartering entity may nonrenew or grant renewal for an additional five years, based upon the performance of the public charter school on the performance indicators, measures and metrics contained in the performance certificate. The law provides that subsequent renewals shall be for a term of five years.

The law requires an authorized chartering entity to develop revocation and nonrenewal processes that: provide the charter holders with a timely notification of the prospect of revocation or nonrenewal and of the reasons for such possible closure, which shall be limited to failure to meet the terms of the performance certificate or the written conditions established by the authorizer; allow the charter holders a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare a response; provide the charter holders with an opportunity to submit documents and give testimony challenging the rationale for closure and in support of the continuation of the school at an orderly proceeding held for that purpose; allow the charter holders to be represented by counsel and to call witnesses on their behalf; permit the recording of such proceedings; and, after a reasonable period for deliberation, require a final determination to be made and conveyed in writing to the charter holders.

The law provides that revocation may not occur until the public charter school has been afforded a public hearing, unless the authorized chartering entity determines that the continued operation of the public charter school presents an imminent public safety issue, in which case the charter may be revoked immediately. The law provides that public hearings shall be conducted by the authorized chartering entity or such other person or persons appointed by the authorized chartering entity to conduct public hearings and receive evidence as a contested case. The law provides that notice and opportunity to reply shall include, at a minimum, written notice setting out the basis for consideration of revocation, a period of not less than thirty days within which the public charter school can reply in writing, and a public hearing within thirty days of the receipt of the written reply.

The law provides that if an authorized chartering entity revokes or does not renew a charter, the authorized chartering entity shall clearly state, in a resolution of its governing board, the reasons for the revocation or nonrenewal.

The law requires authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

The law provides that a charter contract may be transferred to any authorizing charter entity in the state, provided that the current authorizer, new authorizer, and board of the charter school agree. There is no requirement that the state approve any such transfer, though there is an opportunity to appeal to the state board of education if there is a disagreement over transferring a charter.

Illinois law requires charter schools to submit a renewal proposal to its authorizer.
The law allows a charter to be revoked for committing a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter, failing to meet or make reasonable progress toward achievement of the content standards or pupil performance standards identified in the charter, failing to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violating any provision of law from which the charter school was not exempted. The law provides that renewals can be made for up to 10 years depending on authorizer’s assessment of charter school’s performance. However, the law provides that charter schools authorized by the state board may only be renewed in terms up to 5 years in length.

In the case of revocation, the law requires the authorizer to notify the charter school in writing of the reason why the charter is subject to revocation. It requires the charter school to submit a written plan to the authorizer to rectify the problem, which must include a timeline for implementation not to exceed two years or the date of the charter's expiration, whichever is earlier.

If the authorizer finds that the charter school has failed to implement the plan of remediation and adhere to the timeline, the law requires it to revoke the charter. Except in situations of an emergency where the health, safety, or education of the charter school's students is at risk, the law provides that the revocation must take place at the end of a school year. The law allows a charter authorized by a local school board to appeal the board’s notice of their decision to revoke or not renew a charter to the state board of education, whose decisions are subject to judicial review.

Under Illinois law, reports of denials, revocations, or non-renewals must consist of the charter proposal or current charter contract voted upon by the authorizers. The law requires the authorizers to determine a decision in a public forum and to send a copy of each board's resolution setting forth the board's action and its reasons for the action to the state board of education.

The law has closure provisions related to property and asset disposition. State regulations outline the requirements for timely parent notification and orderly student and record transitions. State law also requires the school to give parents 60 days’ notice of the closure

Indiana law provides that the renewal application process must, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the charter school to present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report, supporting its case for charter renewal, describe improvements undertaken or planned for the charter school, and detail the charter school's plans for the next charter term.Not later than the end of the calendar year in which the charter school seeks renewal of a charter, the law requires the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal to submit a renewal application to the charter authorizer under the renewal application guidance issued by the authorizer. The law requires the renewal application to include guidance from the authorizer and requires the guidance to include the performance criteria that will guide the authorizer's renewal decisions.

The law provides that the minimum standards for renewal and the standards to avoid closure imposed by authorizers on the charter school in the charter school agreement must include a requirement that the charter school not remain in the lowest category or designation of school improvement, including any alternative accountability category or designation, in the third year after initial placement in the lowest category or designation established under state law.
Current Indiana law provides that if an authorizer determines that an organizer is failing to comply with the conditions or procedures established in the charter, a charter school established by the organizer is failing to meet the educational goals set forth in the charter, an organizer is failing to comply with all applicable federal and state laws, an organizer fails to meet generally accepted fiscal management and government accounting principles, or one or more grounds for revocation exist as specified in the charter, the authorizer shall notify the governing board in writing and give the organizer a reasonable time to remedy the deficiency. If the organizer does not remedy the deficiency within the timeline established by the authorizer, the authorizer may order any corrective action that the authorizer considers necessary to correct the deficiency or revoke the school’s charter.
In making charter renewal decisions, the law requires an authorizer to make decisions based upon evidence of the school's performance over the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract, ensure the data used in making renewal decisions are available to the school and the public, and provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision.

Indiana law provides that a charter may be renewed for not more than seven years.

The law requires an authorizer to develop revocation and nonrenewal processes that provide the organizer with a timely notification of revocation or nonrenewal and the reasons for the possible revocation or nonrenewal, allow the organizer a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare a response, provide the organizer with an opportunity to submit documents and give testimony in support of the continuation of the charter school at a proceeding held for that purpose, allow the organizer access to representation by counsel, and after a reasonable period for deliberation, require that a final determination be made and conveyed in writing to the organizer.

The law requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Before any charter school closure decision, the law requires an authorizer to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of each student’s education records in accordance with state law, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets.

Before an authorizer may issue a charter to an organizer that has had its charter terminated or has been informed that its charter will not be renewed by the organizer's current authorizer, the law requires the authorizer to request to have the proposal reviewed by the state board at a hearing and must receive approval by the state board.

Annually, by June 30, the law provides that the state board shall issue a charter school performance report and charter school contract renewal application guidance to each charter school whose charter school contract will expire during the following school budget year. The performance report shall summarize the charter school's performance record to date based on the data required by the charter school contract and by this chapter and shall identify concerns that may jeopardize renewal of the charter school contract if not remedied. The charter school shall have sixty days to respond to the performance report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.

The renewal application guidance shall, at a minimum, include the criteria that will be used when assessing charter school contract renewal decisions and provide an opportunity for the charter school to: present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report; describe improvements undertaken or planned for the charter school; and describe the charter school's plans, including any proposed modifications, for the next charter school contract term.

No later than October 1, the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal shall submit a renewal application to the state board pursuant to the renewal application guidance. A renewal or denial shall be approved by resolution of the state board within sixty days following the filing of the renewal application.

Unless eligible for expedited renewal under the charter school law, when reviewing a charter school contract renewal application, the state board shall do all of the following: use evidence of the school's performance over the term of the charter school contract in accordance with the applicable performance framework; ensure that data used in making renewal decisions is available to the charter school and the public; and provide a report summarizing the evidence that served as a basis for the decision.

A charter school contract may be revoked at any time or not renewed if the state board determines that the charter school did any of the following: committed a material violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards, or procedures required under the charter school contract or this chapter; failed to meet or make sufficient progress toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter school contract; failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or violated a provision of law from which the charter school was not exempted.

The state board shall develop charter school contract revocation and nonrenewal standards and procedures that do all of the following: provide the charter school with a timely notice of the possibility of revocation or nonrenewal and of the reasons therefor; allow the charter school a reasonable period of time in which to prepare a response to any notice received; provide the charter school an opportunity to submit documents and give testimony challenging the decision to revoke the charter school contract or the decision to not renew the contract; allow the charter school the opportunity to hire legal representation and to call witnesses; permit the audio or video recording of such proceedings; and require a final decision to be conveyed in writing to the charter school.

A decision to revoke or to not renew a charter school contract shall be by resolution of the state board and shall clearly state the reasons for the revocation or nonrenewal.

If a charter school has been evaluated and graded to be in the exceptional category, or the highest rated category under a succeeding evaluation system, under the evaluation and grading required under section 256E.9, subsection 5, for the immediately preceding two school years, and the charter school is in compliance with the current charter school contract and all provisions of the charter school law, the charter school's application renewal shall be renewed for an additional period of time equal to the length of the original charter school contract or the most recent renewal of the contract, whichever is longer, unless the state board provides written notice to the charter school of the state board's rejection of the expedited renewal within sixty days of the filing of the application. The state board shall not reject an expedited renewal application unless the state board finds exceptional circumstances for the rejection or seeks material changes to the charter school contract.

Prior to any charter school closure decision, the law provides that the state board shall develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notice to parents and guardians, provide for the orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and to provide proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The protocol shall specify required actions and timelines and identify responsible parties for each such action.

In the event of a charter school closure, the law provides that the assets of the charter school shall be used first to satisfy outstanding payroll obligations for employees of the school, then to creditors of the school, then to the public school district in which the charter school operated, if applicable, and then to the state general fund. If the assets of the charter school are insufficient to pay all obligations of the charter school, the prioritization of the distribution of assets shall be consistent with this subsection and otherwise determined by the district court.

Kansas law provides that renewals should be approved only if the local school board and the state board of education determine that the charter school has demonstrated progress in achieving its program goals.

Kansas law provides that the local school board must revoke the charter of a school if the school: materially violates provisions contained in the charter; fails to make progress in achieving the program goals contained in the charter; fails to comply with fiscal accountability procedures as specified in the charter; or violates rules and regulations of the state board of education that have not been waived by the state board.

The law provides that charter renewal terms are five years.

Kansas law provides that prior to nonrenewing or revoking a charter, a local school board must hold a hearing on the issues in controversy and provide spokespersons for the charter school the opportunity to present information refuting the basis upon which the nonrenewal or revocation is premised. The law provides timelines for notification about the hearing and for announcing a decision after the hearing and requires the decision to nonrenew or revoke a charter to be in writing to the charter school and to specify the reasons for the nonrenewal or revocation. The law also allows the charter school authorities to renew procedures for authority to operate a charter school or to submit a request to the local school board for the reconsideration of its decision and includes a timeline for the local school board to act on such request.

Louisiana law requires each charter school to provide a comprehensive report to its chartering authority at the end of its the third year. If the charter school is achieving its stated goals and objectives pursuant to its approved charter, then the authorizer must extend the charter for the additional two-year period as provided in law. It does not require a similar report at the end of its fifth year of operation.

Louisiana law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it and requires each chartering authority to share their renewal criteria and procedures with their schools.

State law requires that any charter school overseen by a local school board is automatically renewed if it has met or exceeded the benchmarks established in accordance with the school and district accountability systems, has demonstrated growth in student achievement, and has had no significant audit findings for the three consecutive years prior to its consideration for renewal.

Louisiana law provides that no charter shall be renewed unless the charter renewal applicant can demonstrate, using standardized test scores, improvement in the academic performance of pupils over the term of the charter school's existence.

Louisiana regulation provides that state-authorized charter school in Louisiana receiving an academically unacceptable performance label based on state assessment and accountability program results from the school’s fourth year of operation (or for subsequent renewals, the year prior to the submission of a renewal application) will not be eligible for renewal unless certain conditions are met.

Louisiana law provides that an authorizer may revoke a charter contract if the school failed to improve the academic performance of students on standardized tests over the term of the charter school's existence, committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures provided for in the approved charter, failed to meet or pursue within the agreed timelines any of the academic and other educational results specified in the approved charter, failed to meet generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or violated any provision of law applicable to a charter school, its officers, or its employees.

Louisiana law allows charter contracts to be renewed for additional periods of not less than three nor more than ten years after thorough review by the approving chartering authority of the charter school's operations and compliance with charter requirements.

Louisiana law requires authorizers to notify schools in writing of any decisions made relative to renewal or non-renewal of a school’s charter not later than January 31st of the year in which the charter would expire.

Under state regulations, prior to meeting to present a recommendation of revocation of any charter authorized by the state board of education, the state department of education must notify the charter operator of the reasons. Regulations provide that the school must have an opportunity to provide input and a hearing must be held consistent with due process protections. These provisions are only applicable to charters authorized by the state board of education, not to charters authorized by other entities.

The law requires that revocation decisions must be made by a majority vote at a formal meeting of the local district board or the state board of education.

State board rule details procedures for asset recordkeeping and disposition in the event of a school closure. However, they don’t ensure timely parent notification and orderly student and record transitions.

Maine law provides that during the fourth year of a charter school’s operation, the authorizer must issue a public charter school performance report. If the charter contract is expiring the next year, the law also requires the authorizer to offer charter renewal application guidance to the school. The law requires the performance report to include data on performance to date and notice of any weaknesses or concern that may jeopardize renewal. The law requires that schools be given the opportunity to respond and submit any corrections or clarifications and to submit additional evidence. In addition, the law requires such schools to officially apply for renewal by no later than September of their fifth year of operation.
The law includes clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal/revocation. It also requires authorizers to make their renewal decisions based on evidence of the school’s performance over the term of the charter.

Maine law provides that an authorizer may renew a charter for successive terms of five years. It also provides that an authorizer may issue a renewal for 15 years with public performance reports every five years.

The law requires authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal, including reasons, and reasonable time to respond.

Maine law requires renewal decisions to occur via a resolution of an authorizer’s governing body, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute includes school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

Maryland law includes a small number of the model law's clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions. Maryland law permits an eligible public charter school to submit to the public chartering authority an application for contract renewal.

Massachusetts regulations require that charter schools seeking renewal apply for it under renewal application guidelines established by the state board of education. Regulations also require that applications for the renewal of Horace Mann charters must be submitted with the approval of the local teachers' union and the local school committee.
Massachusetts regulations provides that the renewals of high-performing charter schools are delegated to the state commissioner of education. The state commissioner of education must declare which schools he plans to invoke delegation for. The state board of education may choose to bring the school in front of the board for a vote instead.

Massachusetts regulations require the state department of education to issue guidelines describing the evaluation process to be followed in reviewing applications for charter renewal, including protocols for renewal inspections. Regulations require that the decision by the state board of education to renew a charter must be based upon the presentation of affirmative evidence regarding the success of the school's academic program; the viability of the school as an organization; and the faithfulness of the school to the terms of its charter. Regulations require the state department to gather evidence regarding these issues from the renewal application and from other information, including but not limited to, a school's annual reports, financial audits, test results, site visit reports, and renewal inspection. Regulations provide that all charter schools must be evaluated on the same performance criteria as provided in the guidelines, provided, however, that the criteria take into account each school's charter and accountability plan.

Massachusetts regulations provide that the state board may suspend or revoke a charter for cause, including but not limited to: a material misrepresentation in the application for approval of the charter; failure to comply substantially with the terms of the charter, with any of the applicable provisions in state law, or with any other applicable law or regulation; financial insolvency; misappropriation, conversion, mismanagement, or illegal withholding of funds or refusal to pay any funds that belong to any person otherwise entitled thereto and that have been entrusted to the charter school or its administrators in their fiduciary capacities; fraud or gross mismanagement on the part of charter school administrators or Board of Trustees; criminal convictions on the part of the charter school or its Board of Trustees; or failure to fulfill any conditions imposed by the state board in connection with the grant of a charter.

Massachusetts regulations require that charters that are renewed must be for five years from the expiration of the previous charter under such conditions as the state board may establish under regulation. The law does not provide authorizers with the authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

Massachusetts regulations require the state board to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal and reasonable time to respond and to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation.

Massachusetts regulations contain the following closure provisions:

• Charter schools must comply with the closing procedures established by the state department.
• Upon the revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary return of a commonwealth charter, title to all of the property of the charter school shall immediately vest in the Commonwealth, subject to the rights of any secured party holding a perfected security interest in the property of such charter school. Any funds remaining after the satisfaction of the charter school's obligations shall be deposited in the General Fund. This regulation shall not apply to the extent the charter school or any other interested party demonstrates that charter school property was purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by, persons or entities other than the Commonwealth, in which case ownership of the property shall be transferred to such persons or entities, unless otherwise voted by the Board of Trustees.
• Upon the revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary return of a Horace Mann charter, title to all of the property of the charter school shall immediately vest in the school district in which the school is located, subject to the rights of any secured party holding a perfected security interest in the property of such charter school. This regulation shall not apply to the extent the charter school or any other interested party demonstrates that charter school property was purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by, persons or entities other than the district or Commonwealth, in which case ownership of the property shall be transferred to such persons or entities, unless otherwise voted by the Board of Trustees.

Michigan law requires all charter contracts to detail the process and standards for renewal which must include increases in academic achievement of all groups of students as measured by assessments or other objective criteria as the most important factor in all renewal decisions. The law lists the standard grounds for revocation and also requires that procedures and grounds for revocation be included in each charter’s contract. In addition, the law requires the revocation of any charter school operating for at least four years that is in the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in the state and in their second year of restructuring sanctions.
Michigan law does not dictate the length of renewal contracts, so authorizers are allowed to grant renewal contract term lengths based on performance.

Statute contains closure provisions regarding assets and student placement for urban high school academies. It also contains closure provisions regarding student placements and funds for other types of charter schools, but nothing about required parent notification, record transfer and asset disposition.

The law prohibits a new charter being granted to a school to open in the same location, if that school’s previous charter was revoked for performance issues or if the school would have substantially the same board of directors, leadership and curriculum offerings as the closed school.

It should be noted that the Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers has adopted a common set of standards. While such standards are great practice and address many of the missing requirements in our analysis, they are not required per statute or regulation.

Minnesota law requires authorizers to provide a formal written evaluation of each school’s performance before renewal of its contract.
Statute does not require a formal renewal application, but instead requires authorizers to detail for state commissioner approval their process for making decisions regarding the renewal or termination of a school’s charter based on evidence that demonstrate the academic, organizational, and financial competency of the school, including its success in increasing student achievement and meeting the goals of the charter school agreement. It also requires such items to be detailed in the actual charter school contract, including the performance evaluation that is a prerequisite for renewing a charter contract. The law does not require authorizers to provide an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

Minnesota law provides that charter renewals may be made for up to five years.

Minnesota law requires the authorizer to provide timely notification of potential revocation to the school’s board of directors in writing, including the grounds for the proposed action. It allows the school to request an informal hearing.

Statute requires that traditional school district authorizers must act on chartering decisions at public meetings. It does not require other authorizers to do so.

Minnesota law requires each charter contract to have detailed provisions regarding what would happen if the school closed, including student notification and transfer and financial issues. There are also specific provisions in statute regarding the transfer of records and the disposition of property and assets.

According to the law, if an authorizer and a charter school board of directors mutually agree not to renew a contract, or if the governing board of an approved authorizer votes to withdraw as an approved authorizer, a change in authorizers is allowed. The state commissioner of education must approve such transfers.

Statute requires the state authorizer to issue school performance renewal reports and requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it using renewal application guidance provided by the state authorizer.
State law requires the state authorizer to have clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal decisions and to base decisions on evidence in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. The law provides that the state authorizer may not renew the charter of any charter school that, during the school's final operating year under the term of the charter contract, is designated an "F" school under the school accreditation rating system.

Statute requires charter contract renewals to be for five-year terms, although it allows the state authorizer to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of a charter school.

State law requires the state authorizer to provide schools with timely notification of potential revocation and due process, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing. It requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with the state authorizer stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires the state authorizer to develop a charter school termination protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records, and proper disposition of public funds, property, and assets.

The law includes implicit requirements that schools seeking renewal must apply for it.
According to Missouri law, a sponsor's renewal process of a charter school shall be based on the thorough analysis of a comprehensive body of objective evidence and consider if:

• The charter school has maintained results on its annual performance report that meet or exceed the district in which the charter school is located based on the performance standards that are applicable to the grade level configuration of both the charter school and the district in which the charter school is located in three of the last four school years.
• The charter school is organizationally and fiscally viable determining at a minimum that the school does not have a negative balance in its operating funds, a combined balance of less than three percent of the amount expended for such funds during the previous fiscal year, or expenditures that exceed receipts for the most recently completed fiscal year.
• The charter is in compliance with its legally binding performance contract and certain sections of state law.

Missouri law indicates that high-quality charter schools shall be provided expedited opportunities to replicate and expand and may be renewed for a longer time period.

The law requires a sponsor to have a policy to revoke a charter during the charter term if there is clear evidence of underperformance as demonstrated in the charter school’s annual performance report in three of the last four school years or a violation of the law or the public trust that imperils students or public funds.

Under Missouri law, an authorizer can revoke a charter or take other appropriate remedial action, which may include placing the charter school on probationary status for no more than twenty-four months, provided that no more than one designation of probationary status shall be allowed for the duration of the charter contract, at any time if the charter school commits a serious breach of one or more provisions of its charter or on any of the following grounds: failure to meet the performance contract as set forth in its charter, failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violation of law.

Before revoking a charter, the law requires authorizers to provide appropriate due process protections to the school, including a timely written notice of an intent to revoke and a formal hearing upon request of the school’s board.

The law provides that renewal terms are for not less than five years nor greater than 10 years.

The law requires authorizers to hold administrative hearings upon a recommendation of revocation.

Along with data reflecting the academic performance standards indicated in state law, the law requires the sponsor to submit a revised charter application to the state board of education for review and renewal.

Beginning August first during the year in which a charter is considered for renewal, the law requires a charter school sponsor to demonstrate to the state board of education that the charter school is in compliance with federal and state law as provided in certain sections of state law and the school's performance contract including but not limited to those requirements specific to academic performance.

The law requires the state board of education to vote on a charter up for renewal at a regularly scheduled board meeting. The law also requires the state board of education to renew a school’s charter if a charter school sponsor demonstrates the objectives identified in state law. The law does not require authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

The law requires charter contracts to contain procedures to be implemented if the charter school should close including: orderly transition of student records to new schools and archival of student records; archival of business operation and transfer or repository of personnel records; submission of final financial reports; resolution of any remaining financial obligations; disposition of the charter school's assets upon closure; and a notification plan to inform parents or guardians of students, the local school district, the retirement system in which the charter school's employees participate, and the state board of education within thirty days of the decision to close.

For all new or revised charters, the law requires charter contracts to contain procedures to be used upon closure of the charter school requiring that unobligated assets of the charter school be returned to the state department of elementary and secondary education for their disposition, which upon receipt of such assets shall return them to the local school district in which the school was located, the state, or any other entity to which they would belong.

Nevada law requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year, requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it, and provides renewal application requirements and timelines.

Nevada regulations allow authorizers to have a differentiated process for renewal of high-performing charter schools.

Nevada law requires that an authorizer’s renewal decisions be based upon the criteria of the authorizer for the renewal of charter contracts and evidence of the performance of the charter school during the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance framework for the charter school.

If the proposed authorizer is the State Public Charter School Authority or a college or university within the Nevada System of Higher Education, Nevada law requires the proposed authorizer, in renewing the application to form a charter school, to solicit input from the board of trustees of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located.
Nevada law provides that an authorizer may reconstitute the governing body of a charter school, revoke a written charter, or terminate a charter contract before the expiration of the charter if the sponsor determines that: the charter school, its officers, or its employees committed a material breach of the terms and conditions of the written charter or charter contract, failed to comply with generally accepted standards of fiscal management, failed to comply with the provisions of the state’s charter law or any other statute or regulation applicable to charter schools; the charter school has filed for a voluntary petition of bankruptcy, is adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent, or is otherwise financially impaired such that the charter school cannot continue to operate; there is reasonable cause to believe that revocation or termination is necessary to protect the health and safety of the pupils who are enrolled in the charter school or persons who are employed by the charter school from jeopardy, or to prevent damage to or loss of the property of the school district or the community in which the charter school is located; the authorizer determines that the committee to form the charter school or charter management organization, as applicable, or any member of the committee to form the charter school or charter management organization, as applicable, or the governing body of the charter school has at any time made a material misrepresentation or omission concerning any information disclosed to the sponsor; the charter school is a high school that has a graduation rate for the immediately preceding school year that is less than 60 percent; the charter school is an elementary or middle school or junior high school that is rated in the lowest 5 percent of elementary schools, middle schools or junior high schools in the State in pupil achievement and school performance for the immediately preceding school year, as determined by the Department pursuant to the statewide system of accountability for public schools; or the charter school has persistently underperformed, including, without limitation, underperformance in pupil achievement and school performance, as determined by the Department pursuant to criteria prescribed by regulation.

Nevada law provides that the authorizer of a charter school shall revoke the written charter or terminate the charter contract of the charter school or restart the charter school under a new charter contract if the charter school receives three annual ratings established as the lowest rating possible indicating underperformance of a public school for any three out of five years, as determined by the state department of education pursuant to the statewide system of accountability for public schools.

Nevada law allows flexibility during the charter school contract renewal process by allowing the length of the renewed contract to vary from three to 10 years.
Nevada law requires authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential reconstitution, revocation, termination, and non-renewal decisions, a reasonable time to respond, and due process.

Nevada law provides that renewal contract terms are for six years. It does not allow authorizers to vary the length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

Nevada law requires governing bodies of charter schools that cease to operate voluntarily or upon revocation of their written charter contract to appoint an administrator of the charter school to act as a trustee during the process of the closure of the charter school and for one year after the date of closure.

State law notes that no charter contract is assignable or transferable and may not be delegated to a third party.

Regulations require the charter school board of trustees to apply for renewal no later than one year before the original charter is set to expire and require this application to include the school's fourth-year annual report for their first renewal and the most recent report for future renewals.
New Hampshire law requires that a charter school must meet or exceed the objective academic test results or standards and goals as set forth in it application in order to be renewed.

During the term of a charter, New Hampshire law provides that any charter school parent (or local school board involved) can submit a written petition to the state board or request the revocation of a charter. The law provides that after reasonable notice has been provided to all affected parties, the state board may revoke a school's charter prior to the expiration of its term under the following circumstances: the school commits a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in its charter application and contract; the school fails to meet generally accepted standards for fiscal management; the school significantly violates the law; the school makes a material misrepresentation in its application or contract application; or the school becomes insolvent or financially unstable.

Statute indicates that renewals are for a term of five years.

The law provides charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions including a written notice of concerns and the right to a public hearing.

The law requires renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions to be made in a public hearing, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires provisions for dissolution of a given charter school (including disposition of its assets as well as a plan for the education of the school’s pupils) be detailed in the contract. In addition, statute details the disposition of assets if not clear within the charter contract.

New Jersey regulations require that the state department of education must annually issue a public report on each charter school’s academic performance based on their performance framework.
New Jersey law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.

New Jersey regulations provide for an expedited renewal process for charter schools that have been deemed high performing for three consecutive years during the most recent charter contract term.

New Jersey law and regulations provide clear renewal criteria, including the review of annual performance reports, student performance on state standardized tests, monitoring visits, annual assessments of student composition of the school, and local district recommendations. State rules note that decisions are to be made based on evidence in alignment with the performance frameworks in their charter.

The law provides that a charter school may be closed for failing to fulfill any condition imposed by the state commissioner of education in connection with the granting of the charter or violating any provision of its charter.

The law allows the state commissioner to grant or deny a renewal application upon a comprehensive review of the school, including the renewal application, the school’s annual reports, comments on the annual reports from the local district, state test scores, monitoring of the school by the county superintendent and state commissioner, annual assessments of student composition of the school, the recommendation of the local district board, and interviews with school leaders, parents, and teachers conducted by the state commissioner.

Under New Jersey law, charters can be renewed for five years.

The law requires the state commissioner to provide written notice of a closure decision to schools but applicable law and regulation offer limited language on due process protections. It also does not require the state commissioner to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting.

State rules include detailed language regarding school closure protocols, which include timely parent and staff notification, orderly student and record transition, and property and asset disposition.

New Mexico law requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it. It requires the renewal application to include a report on the progress towards meeting the state public education department’s minimum education standards and other performance goals stated in each school’s charter contract academic performance framework.
New Mexico law allows an authorizer to suspend, revoke, or not renew a charter if it determines that the charter school did any of the following: committed a material violation or breach of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter contract; failed to meet or make substantial progress toward achievement of the department's standards of excellence or student performance standards identified in the charter contract; failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

The law requires authorizers to develop processes for suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of a charter that provides the charter school with timely notification of the prospect of suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of the charter and the reasons for such action, allows the charter school a reasonable amount of time to prepare and submit a response to the authorizer’s action, and requires the final determination made by authorizer to be submitted to the state public education department. The law requires the authorizer to rule in a public hearing on the renewal application no later than 180 days prior to the charter contract’s expiration. The law allows charter schools to appeal authorizer decisions to revoke or not renew a charter to the state secretary of education.

New Mexico law allows a charter to be renewed for successive periods of five years each and allows approvals of less than five years if agreed to between the charter school and the authorizer.

New Mexico law requires all charter renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions to be made in a public meeting and requires authorizers to state their reasons for revocation or non-renewal in writing.

Prior to any charter school closure, the law requires an authorizer to develop closure protocols that include timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and records, and disposition of property and assets. The protocol must also specify tasks, timelines, and the duties of responsible parties.

New York law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.
The law provides that renewal applications must include a report on progress towards the school’s educational objectives, financial statement, annual reports, and indications of parent and student satisfaction.

For renewal, the law references the same criteria that applies to the approval of initial charter applications – an applicant must meet applicable legal requirements, demonstrate the ability to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner, and show it is likely to improve student learning and achievement and further the purposes of the law. The law also requires a school to show the efforts it has undertaken to enroll and retain comparable numbers of at-risk students (that is, students that are free and reduced price lunch eligible, receiving special education services, or classified as English Language Learners) as are enrolled and retained in district schools.

New York law provides that the renewal term may not exceed five years.

New York law provides that revocation or termination may be based on insufficient student achievement, serious violations of law, material and substantial violations of the charter, violations of civil service laws relating to employee rights, or repeated failure to meet targets for the enrollment and retention of at-risk students (though, on the last one, good faith efforts by a school can insulate it from action being taken against it).

New York law requires authorizers to provide schools facing closure with a notice of intent to revoke the charter, an opportunity to be heard, and time to correct the problems identified.

Since authorizers are subject to the state open meetings law, they are therefore required to make all renewal and closure decisions within a public meeting. Statute states that charter denials must include reasons in writing.

New York law requires applicants to establish viable processes for closure and dissolution, including orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.
The law does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and does not require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans. In practice, authorizers issue renewal application guidance.
Generally, the law has been interpreted to not allow changing authorizers, with one exception: if a school is merging multiple schools from more than one authorizer under one governance structure, it will be consolidated to just one authorizer.

State board policies offer renewal application guidance and detail a renewal process which requires schools to apply for renewal by completing their portion of the North Carolina Charter Schools Renewal Report, including a self-study that allows them to present evidence of success and progress towards the goals as outlined in the charter application and contract. State board policies require the state department of public instruction to compile its portion of the renewal report, which includes various performance data collected by the authorizer.
North Carolina law allows the state board of education to terminate, not renew, or seek applicants to assume the charter through a competitive bid process established by the state board upon any of the following grounds: failure to meet the requirements for student performance contained in the charter; failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; violations of law; material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter; two thirds of the faculty and instructional support personnel at the school request that the charter be terminated or not renewed; or other good cause identified.

The law notes that the state board of education shall identify low-performing charter schools on an annual basis, with such schools being those that receive a school performance grade of D or F and a school growth score of "met expected growth" or "not met expected growth." The board shall also identify continually low-performing charter schools on an annual basis, with such school being a charter school that has been designated by the state board as low-performing for at least two of three consecutive years.
The law also notes that If a charter school is continually low-performing, the state board is authorized to terminate, not renew, or seek applicants to assume the charter through a competitive bid process established by the state board. However, the state board shall not terminate or not renew the charter of a continually low-performing charter school solely for its continually low-performing status if the charter school has met growth in each of the immediately preceding three school years or if the charter school has implemented a strategic improvement plan approved by the State Board and is making measurable progress toward student performance goals.
State board policy requires the authorizer to inform a charter school up for renewal about potential concerns and allows that the school may be asked to create a corrective action plan, with such action plan completed prior to the last year of the contract.
At the end of a school’s charter term, North Carolina law provides that the state board of education shall renew the charter for 10 years if the charter has provided financially sound audits for the prior three years, academic outcomes for the past three years have been comparable to the academic outcomes in the local school district where the charter is located, the charter is, at the time of the request for renewal of the charter, substantially in compliance with state law, federal law, or the school’s own bylaws or the provisions set forth in the school’s charter. The law also requires the state board of education to review the operations of each charter school at least once every five years to ensure that the school is meeting the expected academic, financial, and governance standards.

All state board meetings must be open to the public, meaning all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions must be made in a public meeting. The law does not require authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, though.

North Carolina law requires that upon dissolution of the charter school or upon the nonrenewal of the charter, all net assets of the charter school purchased with public funds shall be deemed the property of the local school administrative unit in which the charter school is located. State board policy adds further details to this process and also addresses the integrity of the school’s data and transcripts.

The law allows a contract to be terminated or not renewed for fiscal mismanagement, failure to meet performance goals of the charter, violation of the law, or a "good cause" prior to the end of the school year.
The following circumstances trigger automatic closure of a charter school (with an exemption for schools in which a majority of the students are receiving special education):

* Schools serving no higher than grade three: For the 2013-14 school year and beyond, will be automatically closed if for the past three years has been in Academic Emergency OR has received an “F” in the Kindergarten through 3rd grade literacy measure.
* Schools serving any grade four through eight, but no grade above nine: For the 2013-14 school year and beyond, will be automatically closed if for the past three years was rated Academic Emergency AND showed less than one year of growth in either reading or math OR has received an “F” for the performance index score AND an “F” for the value added score.
* Schools offering any grade ten through twelve: For the 2013-14 school year and beyond, will be automatically closed if for the past three years has been in Academic Emergency OR has received an “F” for the performance index score and has not met the annual measureable objectives.

Ohio law includes automatic closure requirements specific to dropout recovery public charter schools.

The law prohibits a school that is permanently closed under the state’s automatic closure laws from reopening under another name if any of the following apply: the new school has the same authorizer or chief administrator as the closed school; the governing authority of the new school consists of any of the same members that served on the board of the closed school during its last year of operation; 50% or more of the teaching staff or the administrative staff consist of the same individuals who were employed at the closed school during its last year of operation; and, the performance standards and accountability plan prescribed by the authorizer contract for the new school are the same as those for the closed school.

Ohio law does not address the number of years in the renewal term for the charter contract, but simply says that an authorizer may choose not to renew a contract at its expiration or may choose to terminate a contract prior to its expiration.

Under state law, at least 90 days prior to the termination or non renewal of a contract, the authorizer must notify the school of the proposed action in writing, which must include the reasons for the proposed action in detail, the effective date of the termination or non renewal, and a statement that the school may, within fourteen days of receiving the notice, request an informal hearing before the sponsor. The law requires the informal hearing to be held within seventy days of the receipt for a hearing request. Following the hearing, the law requires the authorizer to issue a written decision either affirming or rescinding the decision to terminate or not to renew the contract. The law requires authorizers that are public entities to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions in a public meeting. It does not include a similar provision for authorizers that aren’t public entities.

Ohio law requires each school's charter to contain procedures and policies for the disposition of students and teachers in the event of closure. It also provides that a child attending a terminated or non-renewed charter shall be admitted to his or her district school. It does not contain provisions for property and asset disposition.

The law regulates the conditions under which lower performing schools may contract with a new authorizer, with such requests needing approval by the state department.

Oklahoma law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it and requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.
Oklahoma law provides that a charter school authorizer may deny the request for renewal if it determines the charter school has failed to complete the obligations of the contract or comply with the provisions of the state's charter schools law. It also provides that a charter school authorizer may terminate a contract during the term of the contract for failure to meet the requirements for student performance contained in the contract, failure to meet the standards of fiscal management, violations of the law, or other good cause.

Oklahoma law provides that at the time of its charter renewal, based on an average of the current year and the two prior operating years, an authorizer may close a charter school site identified as being among the bottom five percent of public schools in the state. In the event that an authorizer fails to close a charter school site, the authorizer shall appear before the State Board of Education to provide support for its decision. The State Board of Education may, by majority vote, uphold or overturn the decision of the authorizer. These provisions do not apply to a charter school that has been designed by the State Department of Education as implementing an alternative education program throughout the charter school.

In making a school site closure decision, the State Board of Education shall consider the following:

* Enrollment of students with special challenges such as drug or alcohol addiction, prior withdrawal from school, prior incarceration or other special circumstances;
* High mobility of the student population resulting from the specific purpose of the charter school;
* Annual improvement in the performance of students enrolled in the charter school compared with the performance of students enrolled in the charter school in the immediately preceding school year;
* Whether a majority of students attending the charter school under consideration for closure would likely revert to attending public schools with lower academic achievement.

If the State Board of Education overturns an authorizer’s decision to renew a school ranked in the bottom 5% of all public schools in the state, the Board may implement one of the following actions:

* Transfer the sponsorship of the charter school to another authorizer;
* Order the closure of the charter school at the end of the current school year;
* Order the reduction of any administrative fee collected by the authorizer that is applicable to the charter school.

Oklahoma law requires an authorizer to give written notice of its intent to deny the request for renewal at least eight months prior to expiration of the contract. It requires an authorizer to give at least 90 days written notice to the governing board prior to terminating the contract.

Under Oklahoma law, a charter contract may be renewed for successive five-year terms of duration, although the sponsor may vary the term based on the performance, demonstrated capacities and particular circumstances of each charter school.

Oklahoma law requires authorizers to provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond and to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, submission of evidence).

Oklahoma law requires authorizers to make all charter approval or denial decisions in a public meeting, state in a resolution the reasons for the revocation or nonrenewal, and provide a public report summarizing the evidence used as the basis for each decision.

Oklahoma law contains school closure protocols that authorizers must use.

According to the law, before an authorizer may issue a charter to a charter school governing body that has had its charter terminated or has been informed that its charter will not be renewed by the current authorizer, the authorizer shall request to have the proposal reviewed by the State Board of Education at a hearing. The State Board of Education shall conduct a hearing in which the authorizer shall present information indicating that the proposal of the organizer is substantively different in the areas of deficiency identified by the current authorizer from the current proposal as set forth within the charter with its current authorizer. After the State Board of Education conducts a hearing, the Board shall either approve or deny the proposal. If the proposal is denied, no authorizer may issue a charter to the charter school governing body.

Oregon law provides that charter schools seeking renewal must submit a renewal request to their authorizer and that the authorizer must hold a public hearing and then either grant or deny the renewal within a specified timeline after the public hearing. The law and regulations specify a timeline for the renewal decision-making process but also allow a charter school and authorizer to agree to a different timeline.
The law and regulations state the general criteria upon which authorizers are to base renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions. Regulations require authorizers to base renewal evaluation primarily on review of charter school annual performance reports, annual audits, annual site visits and review, and any other information mutually agreed upon.

Oregon law provides that the first renewal of a charter must be for the same duration as the initial charter and that subsequent renewals must be for a minimum of five years but may not exceed 10 years.

Regulations provide for a public hearing prior to a renewal or non-renewal decision. In the event of a non-renewal decision, regulations allow the school to submit a revised renewal request and appeal to the state board of education. They also require an authorizer to state in writing the reasons for non-renewal, and make renewal, non-renewal and revocation decisions subject to open-meetings requirements.

Oregon law requires an authorizer to provide at least 60 days notice to a charter school prior to revocation of a charter (which can be waived in case of an emergency), provide a public hearing upon request of the school, and state in writing the reasons for revocation. It also allows a charter school to appeal a revocation decision to the state board of education.

Regulations state generally how the assets of a closed charter school shall be distributed. However, they do not require authorizers to have school closure protocols as recommended in the model law.

Statute does not formally address renewal applications, but does mention charter schools “seeking renewal” and a comprehensive review at the time of renewal. There are no requirements for authorizers to issue performance reports or renewal applications or guidance.
Pennsylvania law offers general guidelines for renewal decisions, whereby authorizers are to conduct a comprehensive review prior to granting a five-year renewal. It provides that they can non-renew or terminate a charter for material violations of the statute or the charter as well as failure to meet state requirements for student performance or any performance standard set forth in the charter.

In most districts, the law provides for five-year renewals. It also allows authorizers that are school districts of the first class (Philadelphia) to sign one-year renewal contracts if adequate data does not exist to warrant a full five-year renewal.

The law requires authorizers to provide notice of revocation or nonrenewal that states the grounds for such action with reasonable specificity and hold a public hearing regarding the issues. At such hearing, it requires the authorizer to present evidence supporting the revocation or nonrenewal and give the charter school reasonable opportunity to offer testimony before taking action in a public meeting. The law allows charter schools to appeal a non-renewal or revocation decision to the state appeals board, which can order the local school board to rescind its revocation or nonrenewal decision.

Although authorizers are not required to have closure protocols, statute contains detailed school closure processes which must be followed in the case of nonrenewal or termination of a charter school.

Regulations provide that the state board of education may conduct a review of a school’s charter. They also note the data that should be considered, including evidence from a renewal application, by the state board of education for making decisions regarding renewal. While the regulations mention a “renewal application,” it is unclear if such applications are required of all charters as part of the renewal process.
State law provides that charter renewal contracts may be up to five years, although it does not provide detail on what should determine the length of the continuance. If the state board of education does not conduct a renewal hearing for an existing charter school, the charter shall be renewed for another five-year period.

Rhode Island law states that a charter may be revoked for material violations of those provisions contained within the charter, failing to meet education objectives, fiscal mismanagement, or violation of the law. The law also provides that a charter may be revoked if after three consecutive years of operation, the school is not a “high-performing charter school” that has demonstrated substantial progress improving student achievement and has the management and leadership necessary to establish a thriving, financially viable school.

After denying or prior to non-renewing a charter, state law requires the state department to hold a hearing on the issues in controversy. Regulations add further detail in that schools must be notified in writing about the concerns, given reasonable length of time to correct the concerns, and offered an administrative hearing in which the school has the burden of proof to demonstrate it has met the terms of the charter and other applicable legal requirements.

While the law requires the state to provide its reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, it does not require that these decisions be made in a public meeting.

Regulations require that in the event of a closed school, the state commissioner of education must coordinate student and record transitions (but nothing is mentioned about timely parent notification or property and asset disposition).

South Carolina law dictates that schools must submit a renewal application and identifies what such applications must contain. However, it does not require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year and to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.
The law provides that a charter school may be closed for committing a material violation of the conditions, standards, performance expectations, or procedures provided for in the charter application or charter school contract or both, failing to meet the academic performance standards and expectations as defined in the charter application or charter school contract or both, failing to maintain its books and records according to generally accepted accounting principles or failed to create an appropriate system of internal control or both, or violating any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

The law provides that an authorizer shall permanently close any charter school at the conclusion of the school year after receiving the lowest performance rating as define by the federal accountability system for three consecutive years. This provision does not apply to any charter school serving fifty percent or more students with disabilities or any charter school designated as an Alternative Education Campus by its authorizer per state law.

South Carolina law requires authorizers to annually evaluate the progress schools make towards the pupil achievement standards identified in the charter application and use that information in making renewal or revocation decisions.

The law provides that renewal terms are for 10 years with annual reviews. It does not allow authorizers to vary the length of the charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

At least 60 days before not renewing or terminating a charter school, the law requires the authorizer to notify the school in writing and make a hearing available.

The law requires authorizers to state reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing, but does not require all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting.

Prior to any public charter school closure, the law requires the authorizer to develop a public charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and net assets in accordance with the requirements of the law.

The law contains some provisions regarding the transfer of a charter contract from one authorizer to another, but it does not require state approval for such a transfer.

Tennessee law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it. One year prior to the date on which a charter school is required to submit a renewal application, the law requires the authorizer to submit to the charter school a performance report that directly reflects the renewal application.
Tennessee law provides that a charter agreement shall be revoked or denied renewal if the school receives identification as a priority school as defined by the state’s accountability system on two occassions, with such revocation effective immediately following the close of the school year in which a school is identified as a priority school. This provision does not apply to schools authorized by the achievement school district or a conversion charter school, unless they have been identified as a priority school for two consecutive cycles. Tennessee law also provides that a charter agreement may be revoked or denied renewal if the chartering authority determines that the charter school committed a material violation of any of the standards, conditions or procedures set forth in law, failed to meet generally-accepted standards of fiscal management.

At least 30 days prior to any decision by an LEA to revoke or non-renew a charter, the LEA must notify the school in writing of the possibility and the reasons for such possible revocation. Such decisions may be appealed to the state board of education, except those related to being a priority school.

Tennessee law requires that the term of a charter agreement is 10 years. It also provides that an interim review of a charter school must be conducted by its authorizer under guidelines developed by the state department of education in the fifth year of a charter school's initial period of operation and also in the fifth year following any renewal of a charter agreement. Such guidelines must require a charter school to submit to the authorizer a report on the progress of the school in achieving the goals, objectives, pupil performance standards, content standards and other terms of the approved charter agreement.

Tennessee law requires all renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for their decisions in writing.

Tennessee law contains closure protocols to address student transitions, asset disposition, and debt responsibility.

The law requires the state commissioner of education to develop and by rule adopt a procedure for renewal, denial of renewal, or expiration of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school at the end of the term of the charter. It specifies that the procedure must include consideration of the performance under state law of the charter holder and each campus operating under the charter and must include three distinct processes, which must be expedited renewal, discretionary consideration of renewal or denial of renewal, and expiration.Texas law requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it.
Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for expedited renewal of the charter, the charter automatically renews unless, not later than the 30th day after the date the charter holder submits the petition, the commissioner provides written notice to the charter holder that expedited renewal of the charter is denied. The law provides that the commissioner may not deny expedited renewal of a charter if: the charter holder has been assigned the highest or second highest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial performance accountability rating under state law, indicating financial performance that is satisfactory or better for the three preceding school years; and no campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years or such a campus has been closed.
Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter and the charter does not meet the criteria for expedited renewal or for expiration, the commissioner shall use the discretionary consideration process. The law provides that the commissioner's decision under the discretionary consideration process must take into consideration the results of annual evaluations under the performance frameworks established under state law. The law requires the commissioner to provide a decision to the charter regarding renewal within 60 days of the renewal application.
Texas law provides that at the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter, the commissioner may not renew the charter and shall allow the charter to expire if: the charter holder has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for any three of the five preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under state law indicating financial performance that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned any combination of these ratings for any three of the five preceding school years; or any campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years and such a campus has not been closed.
Texas law allows a district board of trustees to place on probation or revoke a charter it grants if the board determines that the charter committed a material violation of the charter, failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or failed to comply with the state’s charter school law or state agency rule.
The law requires the state commissioner to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school or reconstitute the governing body of the charter holder if the commissioner determines that the charter holder committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter, failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, failed to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the students enrolled at the school, failed to comply with applicable state law or rule, failed to satisfy the performance framework standards adopted under state law, or is imminently insolvent as determined by the commissioner in accordance with commissioner rule.

The law requires the commissioner to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if: the charter holder has been assigned an unacceptable performance rating under state law for the three preceding school years; the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under state law indicating financial performance lower than satisfactory for the three preceding school years; or the charter holder has been assigned any combination of these ratings for the three preceding school years.
Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding a state-authorized school’s performance over the term of the charter contract. However, these laws and regulations are not applicable to district authorizers.

Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to provide state-authorized charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond. The law requires each district board of trustees that authorizes a charter to adopt a procedure to be used for placing on probation or revoking a charter it grants that must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the charter and to parents and guardians of students at the charter.
Texas law provides that for open-enrollment charter schools, a charter will be granted for five years with a possible renewal of 10 years. This law is not applicable to district authorizers.

Texas law and regulations require the state commissioner of education to provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions. In practice, the state education agency does not provide for a due process hearing if the reason for the adverse action is based on a "Chapter 39" violation (i.e., repeated financial and/or academic accountability failures). For Chapter 39 violations, there is a form of due process that is found in the state’s administrative regulations, but that process arguably is not as exacting as the due process afforded for adverse actions that are not Chapter 39 related.
The law requires that the records of an open-enrollment charter school that ceases to operate must be transferred in the manner specified by the commissioner to a custodian designated by the commissioner. It allows the state commissioner to designate any appropriate entity to serve as custodian, including the agency, a regional education service center, or a school district. However, these laws and regulations are not applicable to district authorizers.

Utah law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions regarding clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.
Charter contracts in Utah do not expire or require renewal; they perpetuate indefinitely unless revoked. Therefore, the law does not set forth requirements, criteria, processes, or other guidance for renewal or non-renewal. The law sets forth general grounds for revocation of a charter.

Utah law requires an authorizer planning to revoke a charter to notify the school’s governing body and, if the charter school is a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program, the Utah Charter School Finance Authority in writing of the planned termination and the reasons for it. It also requires the authorizer to give the school an informal hearing, with timely notice, if requested. If the authorizer proposes to terminate the charter of a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program, the law requires the authorizer to conduct a hearing. The law provides that an authorizer may not terminate the charter of a qualifying charter school with outstanding bonds issued in accordance with the state’s Charter School Credit Enhancement Program without mutual agreement of the Utah Charter School Finance Authority and the authorizer.
The law requires revocation decisions to be made in a public meeting, with reasons for revocation stated in writing. It allows charter schools to appeal termination decisions to the state board of education.

The law sets forth essential steps for charter schools to follow in the event of closure. The law does not explicitly state the authorizer’s role and responsibility in overseeing school closure to ensure the protocol is followed, but it does require the authorizer to ensure the completion of a closing school’s final audit.
The law establishes the Charter School Closure Reserve account only for repayment of funds from a closed charter school. The legislature seeded the fund with $1 million. For the next several years, each charter school will pay $2 per student to the fund, when the account should reach $2 million.

Virginia law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.
Virginia law requires charter schools seeking renewal to apply for it. The law provides the following renewal application requirements: a report on the progress of the public charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, program and performance standards for students, and such other conditions and terms as its authorizer may require upon granting initial approval of the charter application; and a financial statement, on forms prescribed by the state board, that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories for the public charter school and that has been concisely and clearly written to enable its authorizer and the public to compare such costs to those of other schools or comparable organizations.

Virginia law provides that authorizers can revoke a charter contract if they determine that a school violates conditions, standards or procedures established in the charter application, fails to make reasonable progress towards academic performance standards, fails to meet sufficient fiscal management standards, or violates applicable law.

Virginia law provides that a charter may be renewed for a period not to exceed five school years.

If a local school board revokes or fails to renew a charter contract, state law provides that it must provide the reasons in writing and post that information on its website. It also requires the local school board to submit documentation to the state board of education as to the rationale for the local school board’s denial or revocation of the charter school application. It does not require these decisions be made in a public meeting, though.

Statute requires authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports and requires schools seeking renewal to apply for it using renewal application guidance provided by the authorizer.
State law requires authorizers to have clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal decisions and to base decisions on evidence in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. Statute notes that a given charter may not be renewed if, at the time of the renewal application, the school’s performance falls in the bottom quartile of schools on the state’s accountability index unless the school demonstrates exceptional circumstances that the authorizer finds justifiable.

Statute requires charter contract renewals to be for five-year terms, although it allows the authorizer to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of a charter school.

State law requires authorizers to provide schools with timely notification of potential revocation and due process, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing. It requires all charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions be made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

Statute requires authorizers to develop a charter school termination protocol to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records, and proper disposition of public funds, property, and assets.

The law provides that a charter contract may not be transferred from one authorizer to another or from one charter school to another before the expiration of the charter contract term except by petition to the state board of education by the charter school or its authorizer. The state board of education must review such petitions on a case-by-case basis and may grant transfer requests in response to special circumstances and evidence that such a transfer would serve the best interests of the charter school's students.

According to West Virginia law, no later than June 30 of the school year before a public charter school’s final year of operation under terms of a charter contract, the authorizer shall issue a performance report on the public charter school. The performance report shall summarize the public charter school’s performance record to date and shall provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns perceived by the authorizer concerning the school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal if not timely rectified.

According to West Virginia law, if the public charter school’s contract is expiring, the authorizer shall offer contract renewal application guidance to the school. The renewal application guidance shall include or refer explicitly to the criteria and standards that will guide the authorizer’s renewal decisions. These criteria and standards shall be based on the performance framework as set forth in the charter contract. The renewal application guidance shall, at a minimum, require and provide an opportunity for the public charter school to:
(1) Present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the performance report, supporting its case for charter renewal;
(2) Describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school; and
(3) Detail the school’s plans for the next charter term.

According to West Virginia law, no later than September 30 of a public charter school’s final authorized year of operation under a term of a charter contract, the governing board of the public charter school seeking renewal shall submit a renewal application to the authorizer pursuant to the renewal application guidance offered by the authorizer. The authorizer shall rule in a public meeting and by resolution on the renewal application no later than 45 days after the filing of the renewal application.

In making charter renewal decisions, the authorizer shall:
(1) Ground its decisions on a thorough analysis of evidence of the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract in accordance with the terms set forth in the charter contract, annual performance reports and any required financial audits;
(2) Ensure that data used in making renewal decisions are available to the public charter school and the public;
(3) Provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision; and
(4) Include one of the following rulings:
(A) Renew the charter contract for another term of five years based on the school’s
performance data and demonstrated capacities of the public charter school; or
(B) Decline to renew the charter contract. The authorizer shall clearly state in a resolution the reasons for the nonrenewal. The governing board of the school shall be granted 30 days to respond in writing to the decision and public report before that decision becomes final. The governing board shall be allowed to provide the authorizer with such arguments and supporting information as it sees fit and also shall be granted an opportunity for a recorded public hearing, at the request of the governing board. The governing board may be represented by counsel at the hearing and may call witnesses to testify. The authorizer shall consider the governing board’s response, testimony, and documentation, as well as the recorded public hearing, prior to rendering a final decision on the renewal of the charter contract. The authorizer shall render its final determination within 10 days of the close of the 30-day period. Any nonrenewal of a charter contract may be appealed to the state board.
The law provides that a charter contract shall include provisions consistent with this Act and setting forth under what conditions a charter contract may be non-renewed and the process by which a non-renewal may occur. At a minimum, these provisions shall include:
(1) The amount of time before non-renewal in which the authorizer shall notify the public charter school of the prospect that the charter contract may be non-renewed and the reasons for the potential non-renewal;
(2) The right to be represented by counsel at all meetings, hearings, and interactions between the governing board and the authorizer;
(3) A reasonable opportunity and timeframe of not less than 60 days for the governing board to provide a response to the proposed non-renewal;
(4) An opportunity for the governing board to submit documentation and provide testimony as to setting forth why the charter contract should be renewed;
(5) An opportunity for a recorded public hearing, at the request of the governing board;
(6) That the authorizer shall consider the governing board’s response, testimony, and documentation, as well as the recorded public hearing, prior to rendering a final decision on the nonrenewal of the charter contract;
(7) The information that must be included in the authorizer’s final decision if it determines not to renew the charter contract;
(8) A timeline for an authorizer to render a final decision on whether or not to renew a charter contract;
(9) Rendering of the authorizer’s decision shall be adopted as a resolution during an open meeting; and
(10) A provision that the failure of the authorizer to act on a renewal application within the designated timeframes shall be deemed approval of the application.
Within 10 days of taking final action to renew or not renew a charter under this section, the authorizer shall report the action taken and reasons for the decision to the school’s governing board and the state board or affected county board, as applicable. A copy of the report shall be submitted at the same time to the state superintendent.

According to West Virginia law, a charter contract may be revoked at any time or not renewed if the authorizer determines that the health and safety of students attending the public charter school is threatened or at such time following the process set forth in the charter school law if the public charter school has failed to substantially comply with the provisions of the charter school law, committed a material violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards or procedures required under this chapter or the charter contract, failed to substantially meet the performance expectations set forth in the charter contract, failed to substantially meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, or violated any provision of law from which the school was not exempted.

The law provides that a charter contract may be revoked at any time if the authorizer determines that the health and safety of students attending the public charter school is threatened, an administrator employed by or member of the governing board over the charter school is convicted of fraud or misappropriation of funds, there is a failure to meet generally accepted standards of financial management, there is a material breach of the charter contract, there is a substantial violation of any provision of law from which the public charter school is not exempted, or there are dire and chronic academic deficiencies.

In the event of a public charter school closure for any reason, the authorizer shall
oversee and work with the closing school to ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students and parents, as guided by the closure protocol established by the state board including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Overseeing and working with the closing public charter school to ensure timely notification to parents, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools and proper disposition of school funds, property and assets in accordance with the requirements of this chapter; and
(2) Distributing the assets of the public charter school first to satisfy outstanding payroll obligations for employees of the public charter school and then to creditors of the public charter
school. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the county board. If the assets of the public charter
school are insufficient to pay all parties to whom the public charter school owes compensation,
the prioritization of distribution of assets may be determined by decree of a court of law.

Wisconsin law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.
Under Wisconsin law, a charter may be revoked for violating its contract, if the pupils enrolled in the charter school failed to make sufficient progress toward attaining the state education goals, for failing to comply with generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or for violating the state's charter school law.

Wisconsin law specifies that a charter may be renewed for one or more additional terms not to exceed five years.

Wyoming law requires charter schools to submit a renewal application to their district authorizer in order to seek renewal, containing a report on the charter school’s academic performance progress and a financial statement in a format required by the state board of education. The law also requires the state superintendent to provide a uniform renewal application “form” (that includes questions, guidelines, and evaluation criteria) that all charter schools and authorizers must use.

According to Wyoming law, a charter may be revoked or not renewed by the district board if the board determines that the charter school did any of the following: committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards or procedures set forth in the charter application; failed to meet or make reasonable progress toward achievement of the content standards or pupil performance standards identified in the charter application; failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted. The law also states that a charter shall not be renewed upon a determination by the district board that it is not in the interest of the pupils residing within the school district to continue the operation of the charter school.

The law allows a charter to be renewed for up to five-year terms. It permits a charter school and its authorizer to agree to extend the length of the charter beyond five years for the purpose of enhancing the terms of any lease or financial obligation.

The law does not require a public hearing or opportunity for a school to make its case prior to a revocation or non-renewal decision. However, if a school district denies renewal of a charter, the charter school board may appeal to the state loan and investment board for a de novo consideration of the renewal. The state loan and investment board shall consider the renewal and if the renewal is approved shall be the authorizer of the charter school.

The law requires authorizers to make renewal, non-renewal or revocation decisions in an open meeting and to state reasons for non-renewal or revocation in writing.

While the law does not require authorizers to have school closure protocols, it does provide that the contract between the charter school and the school district shall provide that upon closure of the charter school any charter school assets purchased with public funds shall become the property of the school district. It also provides that upon closure of the charter school, all charter school records shall be promptly delivered to the school district.

The law provides that the applicant shall have the right to determine which authorizer to apply to and may apply to a different authorizer for renewal of a charter. The state loan and investment board may reject a renewal application from an existing charter school if the renewal is to avoid necessary corrective measures, including closure of the charter school, identified by the authorizer.