Methodology & Rubric

qc_txstatereport_cover_2117x1028_1x_cropped

NACSA examined state laws and rules for current charter school state policies in place as of October 1, 2016, then used the following rubric to assess those policies against NACSA’s recommended policy framework.

POLICY 1: WHO AUTHORIZES

MAXIMUM SCORE 6/6

State law permits more than one authorizer that a school can directly apply to without appeals or other limitations across the state, such as an ICB, SEA, HEI, or NFP. This means there is more than one authorizing option in the state. 6/6
State law permits an alternative authorizer only upon appeal, or there is only a single statewide authorizer. 4/6
State law permits an alternative authorizer with limited jurisdiction, or an LEA decision can be appealed, but the LEA remains the authorizer upon approval. 2/6
State law allows only LEA authorizing. 0/6

 

POLICY 2: AUTHORIZER STANDARDS

MAXIMUM SCORE 3/3

State law incorporates national professional standards of quality authorizing or provides comprehensive standards for authorizing work that meet or exceed NACSA’s Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. 3/3
State law requires comprehensive standards for authorizing work but does not provide any content, or the content is not consistent with NACSA’s Principles & Standards or is not high quality. 1/3
State law fails to require authorizer standards. 0/3

 

POLICY 3: AUTHORIZER EVALUATIONS

MAXIMUM SCORE 3/3

State law requires or allows a state entity charged specifically with evaluating authorizers to assess authorizers’ compliance with applicable standards of quality authorizing and, optimally, to also assess portfolio performance. 3/3
State law requires authorizers to self-report on their compliance with state-mandated standards of quality authorizing. 1/3
State law fails to require authorizer evaluations. 0/3

 

POLICY 4: AUTHORIZER SANCTIONS

MAXIMUM SCORE 3/3

Sanctions can be applied to authorizers for failure to meet standards of quality authorizing or for school performance. Sanctions explicitly include removing authorizing authority. 3/3
Sanctions can be applied to authorizers for failure to meet standards of quality authorizing or for school performance. Sanctions include removing schools from an authorizer’s portfolio. 2/3
Sanctions can be applied to authorizers for failure to meet standards of quality authorizing or for school performance. Sanctions restrict the granting of new charters by the authorizer but may allow authorizers to remain open and continue overseeing existing schools. 1/3
State law does not provide for authorizer sanctions that restrict the granting of new charters by the authorizer, remove schools from the authorizer’s portfolio, or remove authorizing authority. 0/3

 

POLICY 5: REPORTS ON PERFORMANCE

MAXIMUM SCORE 3/3

State law requires authorizers to issue a public annual consolidated report on the performance of schools in their portfolio. 3/3
State law requires some but not all authorizers to issue a public annual consolidated report on the performance of schools in their portfolio, or state law requires public performance reports on each individual school but not a consolidated report of the authorizer’s entire portfolio. 2/3
State law requires a public annual report, including information on school performance, but requires something less than a comprehensive report on all schools in the authorizer’s portfolio. 1/3
State law does not require public reports on school performance. 0/3

 

POLICY 6: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND REPLICATION

MAXIMUM SCORE 3/3

State law requires all authorizers to use three essential performance management tools for all charter schools: (1) a charter contract that is separate and distinct from the charter application, (2) performance frameworks, and (3) policy that encourages and promotes thoughtful replication of high-quality schools. For example, replication policies may include requiring a differentiated (and rigorous) application process specifically designed for high-performing schools seeking to replicate or allowing successful charter operators to run multiple campuses under one charter. 3/3
State law requires the use of two of three tools. 2/3
State law requires the use of one of three tools. 1/3
State law does not require the use of any of these tools. 0/3

 

POLICY 7: RENEWAL STANDARD

MAXIMUM SCORE 6/6

State law allows authorizers the option to refuse to renew low-performing schools based solely on past academic performance and does not allow “reasonable progress” or a similarly vague performance standard to be sufficient for charter renewal. 6/6
State law allows “reasonable progress” or a similarly vague performance standard to be sufficient for charter renewal. 0/6

 

POLICY 8: DEFAULT CLOSURE

MAXIMUM SCORE 6/6

The default consequence under state law provides that charter schools that fail to meet state-defined and enforceable performance standards for a defined period, or at the time of renewal with a term of fewer than 10 years, will lose their charters unless there are extenuating circumstances. 6/6
The default consequence under state law provides that charter schools that fail to meet unspecified state-defined standards for a defined period, or at the time of renewal with a term of fewer than 10 years, will lose their charters unless there are extenuating circumstances. 4/6
The default consequence under state law provides that charter schools that fail to meet state-defined and enforceable performance standards at the time of renewal, with a renewal term of 10 or more years, will be closed at the time of renewal. 2/6
The default consequence under state law is that schools will retain their charters despite failing to meet minimum academic standards. 0/6

Back to the Report Homepage

Save