Colorado

Colorado law does not place any caps on charter school growth.

Colorado law allows new start-ups and public school conversions.

Colorado law allows all local school boards to authorize charter schools, provided that a majority of students (other than online students) at a charter school authorized by a district reside in that district or in contiguous school districts.
In addition, Colorado law has established an independent Charter School Institute with statewide chartering authority except in districts granted “exclusive chartering authority” by the state board of education. The law provides that exclusive chartering authority is a privilege and allows the state board to remove it for authorizers not meeting expectations. Colorado law automatically provides exclusive chartering authority to districts enrolling fewer than 3,000 pupils. It requires other local school boards to apply to the state board for exclusive chartering authority within the geographic boundaries of their district. It also provides that each local school board that was granted exclusive chartering authority by April 17, 2008 retains that authority until the local school board voluntarily relinquishes it or the state board revokes it pursuant to Colorado law.
The law allows an applicant rejected by a local school board or the Institute to appeal the decision to the state board of education. The law allows the state board of education to order the local school board or the Institute to authorize the school.

Colorado law does not require local school boards to register or otherwise affirm their interest in authorizing to the state. However, it requires local school boards in districts with more than 3,000 pupils to apply to the state for exclusive chartering authority within the geographic boundaries of their district.
Colorado law does not provide for a regular review of authorizer performance by the state, but the legislature and governor can review the performance of the state charter institute as an authorizer at any time.

The law provides the state board with limited authority to sanction local school board authorizers through the power to grant (where not statutorily granted) or deny exclusive chartering authority and to revoke such authority if warranted. This sanctioning authority applies only to local school boards that seek, or seek to maintain, exclusive authority. Only the legislature may remove the chartering authority of the state charter institute.

Colorado law requires each authorizer to report annually to the state department of education information that the state requires for public school performance reporting. The law does not require authorizers to report annually on their authorizing activities.

Colorado law requires the state department of education to prepare a report and evaluation every three years for the governor and the state House and Senate education committees on the success or failure of Colorado’s charter schools, their relationship to other school reform efforts, and suggested changes in state law to strengthen the charter school program. It requires the state board to compile charter school evaluations from local district authorizers and the state charter institute. In preparing its evaluation of charter schools statewide, the law requires the state board to compare the performance of charter school students with the performance of ethnically and economically comparable groups of students in other public schools who are enrolled in academically comparable courses.

For district-chartered schools, Colorado law provides that district authorizers may retain the actual cost of each charter school’s per-pupil share of central administrative costs for services actually provided to the charter school, up to 15% of per-pupil funding for districts with 500 or fewer students and up to 5% of per-pupil funding for all other districts. For institute-chartered schools, the law provides that the institute may retain 3% of per-pupil funding (while the state department of education may retain up to 2% of per-pupil funding for its relevant administrative costs). Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the law requires each authorizer to provide to each charter school it oversees an itemized accounting of all its central administrative overhead costs.

The law requires a separate contract for services purchased by a charter school from its authorizer.

The law prohibits the state charter institute from requiring charter schools to purchase services from the institute. The law similarly provides that a district-chartered school may purchase services at its discretion from the district.

Colorado law sets forth a non-exclusive list of minimum general requirements for the content of all charter school applications. The law sets forth additional application requirements specific to conversions and educational service providers.
The law requires a public hearing but not an in-person interview for each charter application. The law requires the state charter institute to conduct a rigorous review of each application, but does not specify such a standard for local school board authorizers.

The law requires authorizers to make charter approval or denial decisions in a public meeting and state reasons for denial in writing.

Colorado law requires a charter contract to be negotiated and executed between each charter school and its authorizer, based upon the approved charter application. The law specifies some administrative issues that contracts must address, but does not require clear articulation of the respective roles and responsibilities of charter schools and authorizers.
The law requires charter contracts to provide a description of the charter school’s measurable annual targets for the measures used to determine the levels of attainment of the performance indicators specified in state law and procedures for taking corrective action if student performance at the school falls below the described targets.

Colorado law requires that charter terms must be for at least four years. The law permits an authorizer and a charter school to agree to extend the length of a charter contract beyond five academic years for the purpose of enhancing the terms of any lease or financial obligation, but does not require periodic high-stakes reviews in such cases.

Colorado law requires authorizers to annually review a charter school’s performance. At a minimum, the law requires the review to include the charter school’s progress in meeting its objectives and the results of the charter school’s most recent annual financial audit. The law requires authorizers to provide to the charter school written feedback from the review and include the results of the charter school’s annual review in the body of evidence that the authorizer takes into account in deciding whether to renew or revoke the charter and that supports the renegotiation of the charter contract.
Colorado law requires charter schools to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management and to annually complete a governmental audit that complies with state requirements. In addition, the law requires all public schools, including charters, to post comprehensive financial information online.

If a charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan pursuant to state law for a second consecutive year, the law requires the charter school to present to its authorizer, in addition to the turnaround plan, a summary of the changes made by the charter school to improve its performance, the progress made in implementing the changes, and evidence, as requested by the authorizer, that the charter school is making sufficient improvement to attain a higher accreditation category within two school years or sooner. If the authorizer finds that the charter school’s evidence of improvement is not sufficient or if the charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan for a third consecutive school year, the law provides that the authorizer may revoke the school’s charter.

Colorado law requires authorizers to annually report to the state department of education state-required information to produce annual school performance reports on each school, which are made public by the state.

Colorado law allows authorizers to request, from the state commissioner of education, temporary intervention powers over a charter school or charter management organization in certain emergency situations. The law sets clear guidelines as to how, when, and for long an authorizer may intervene in such situations if granted authority by the state commissioner.

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.

Colorado law requires the following within any charter application that proposes to contact with an ESP:
(I) A summary of the performance data for all of the schools the education management provider is managing at the time of the application or has managed previously, including documentation of academic achievement and school management success;

(II) An explanation of and evidence demonstrating the education management provider's capacity for successful expansion while maintaining quality in the schools it is managing;

(III) An explanation of any existing or potential conflicts of interest between the governing board of the proposed charter school and the education management provider; and

(IV) A copy of the actual or proposed performance contract between the governing board for the proposed charter school and the education management provider that specifies, at a minimum, the following material terms: (A) performance evaluation measures; (B) the methods of contract oversight and enforcement that the governing board will apply; (C) the compensation structure and all fees that the proposed charter school will pay to the education management provider; and (D) the conditions for contract renewal and termination.

The law requires that similar criminal history record checks and fingerprinting requirements applicable to other public schools shall also be mandatory for on-site employees of ESPs who regularly come into contact with students.

Colorado law explicitly provides for charter school fiscal and legal autonomy. The law also states that a charter school shall be administered and governed by a governing body in a manner agreed to in the charter contract and requires charter schools to organize as nonprofit corporations.

Colorado law requires public charter schools to provide open enrollment to any student in the state. However, it also provides that a prospective charter school may not execute a charter contract with a local district unless a majority of the proposed school’s pupils, other than online pupils, will reside in the chartering district or in contiguous districts.
The law provides that a charter school is subject to all federal and state laws and constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, ancestry, or need for special education services.
Colorado law provides for charter schools to make enrollment decisions in a nondiscriminatory manner specified by the charter school applicant in the application and does not require the mandatory enrollment preferences specified in the model law. The law permits charter schools to negotiate optional enrollment preferences with their authorizer, but the only automatically permitted optional preference is for founders’ children.
The law provides that a charter school must admit students through a publicly verifiable selection process that is either random in nature or first-come-first-served.

The state board of education has promulgated rules identifying state statutes and rules that are automatically waived for all charter schools. Colorado law also allows a district authorizer or the state charter institute to apply to the state board, on behalf of a charter school, for a waiver of a state statute or rule that is not automatically waived for charter schools by rule.
Colorado law requires charter school teachers to be certified, unless a waiver is granted in the charter by the state board, which has happened without exception for over 200 schools since 1993.

Colorado state statute permits (but does not require) collective bargaining for non-charter public school teachers. It neither mandates nor prohibits specific topics that collective bargaining must address.Colorado law does not explicitly address the issue of whether collective bargaining agreements for traditional public schools apply to charter school employees, but it has been consistently interpreted to exempt charter schools from district collective bargaining agreements.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, Colorado state law neither required nor prohibited unions from charging agency fees to non-union members of any collective bargaining unit. Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, it will be illegal to charge agency fees.
The state’s labor law is also silent on the process for selecting or certifying an exclusive representative for a public agency’s bargaining unit, which presumably delegates this authority to local jurisdictions. Generally, courts have held that in states without laws or without comprehensive laws, public employers have the authority to grant recognition to public sector unions and to enter into legally enforceable collective bargaining agreements covering employees.

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

Colorado law states that charter schools are eligible to participate in all extracurricular and interscholastic activities available to noncharter public schools and allows charter school students in schools not providing extracurricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at noncharter public schools.

For a charter school authorized by a local board of education, Colorado law provides that the school district serves as the LEA for special education purposes. For a charter school authorized by the state charter institute, it provides that the institute serves as the LEA for special education. In either case, the district or the institute is ultimately responsible for providing and funding special education in the schools it charters.
The law specifies that the school district of residence is responsible for the excess costs of educating students with disabilities enrolled in a charter school. In addition, Colorado law provides for an insurance option, whereby charter schools may pay their district LEA a per-pupil amount for all students as a form of insurance for high-cost special education students.

The law requires districts to provide their charters with an itemized accounting of all district special education costs along with the basis for any special education charges imposed against their charters.

Colorado law provides that charter schools are entitled to 100% of district per-pupil operating revenues for each pupil they enroll and 100% of the district per-pupil online funding for each online pupil they enroll, minus administrative costs up to a limit. The law also requires districts to share locally raised mill levy override funds with charter schools. A fund has been established to equalize funding for state-authorized schools and provided with $9 million in state funding for 2021-22.
Colorado law provides that charter schools are eligible for their proportionate share of federal and state categorical funding. In practice, there are some implementation problems with this provision where funds are passed through district LEAs.

The law provides that charter schools that meet state reimbursement criteria are eligible for transportation funding on the same basis as school districts.
State law requires school districts to annually report how much mill levy dollars they receive and how many of those are provided to charter schools.

Colorado law provides a per-pupil charter facilities funding program. The state provided $292 per student in 2021-22.
Colorado law allows charter schools to apply for competitive grants from the state’s public school facility financing program, the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) program.

The law requires school districts to invite charter schools to discuss their capital construction needs before the district submits a bond request or floats a bond for facilities funding. Districts are not required, however, to include charter schools as part of their requests or bonds.
The law requires school districts to include at least one charter representative on any long-term mill levy planning committees, invite each charter to participate in ballot submission discussions, and, if the district doesn’t include a charter’s needs, provide a written justification as to why these needs weren’t included. The law requires the creation of an annual report by the Colorado Department of Education that compiles the amount of mill levy revenue in each school district and the amount of the mill levy shared with charters in each school district.
The law specifies that a charter school may not be charged rent for using space in a school district facility, although other costs for facilities operations and maintenance must be negotiated between the charter school and the school district. The law explicitly allows charter schools to lease or purchase land from the state.
The law requires that each school district that authorizes a charter school must prepare a list of any vacant or underused buildings and land and provide the list, upon request, to charter schools authorized by the school district, charter school applicants, and other interested persons, and must also post on their website. Within 45 days after the list is made available, charter schools or applicants may apply to use the building or land as the location for the charter school, and make a decisions in a public meeting held no later than 90 days after the list is posted, including public disclosure of reasons for any disapproval.
The law requires that the state develop and maintain a list of unused state property and determine if that property is suitable for construction or placement of certain community needs such as affordable housing or child care facilities. The law authorizes the state to seek proposals from qualified developers to construct facilities that fit these needs and includes public schools, inclusive of charter schools, as one of the possible beneficiaries of this process.

Colorado law creates the “Charter School Matching Moneys Loan Program,” which is set up to provide a state loan for qualified schools (i.e., investment grade schools) to meet any required matches under the state’s public school facility financing program (i.e., BEST).
Colorado law provides that the Educational and Colorado Cultural Facility Authority (CECFA) may issue bonds on behalf of charter schools. The charter school debt reserve fund, backed by the moral obligation pledge of the state, enhances charter schools’ ability to borrow funds from CECFA and to obtain more favorable rates.
Colorado law provides a mechanism for limited credit enhancement for eligible, highly rated bond transactions for charter schools by using the state’s moral obligation to back up to $750 million in debt.

The law requires school districts to invite charter schools to discuss their capital construction needs before the district submits a bond request or floats a bond for facilities funding. Districts are not required, however, to include charter schools as part of their requests or bonds.

Colorado law requires that charter schools participate in the public employees’ retirement association.

Colorado’s law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions regarding full-time virtual charter schools.
The law requires the state board of education to adopt rules regarding quality standards for such schools covering areas such as: governance, vision, and organization; standards-based curricula and data-driven instructional practices; technological capacity and support; internet safety; sound financial and accounting practices and resources; student academic performance and improvement; monitoring and assessment of student academic performance and improvement; course completion measurements; attendance tracking procedures; data analysis, management, and reporting; guidance counseling; engagement of parents and communities in online programs and online schools; provisions for students with special needs, including gifted and talented students and English language learners; and program evaluation and improvement.

The law also requires annual reporting from such schools to their authorizers. It also requires such schools to submit a request to the authorizer and the department of education of any intent to amend the program's or school's application for certification to expand grade levels served by the program or school. Approval for such changes must be obtained from the department.