Order Code RL31184
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public Charter School Accountability
Updated January 23, 2003
David P. Smole
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Public Charter School Accountability
Summary
A public charter school is a publicly funded elementary or secondary school that
is operated according to the terms of a charter or contract granted by a public
chartering agency. The terms of a school charter typically include provisions
granting autonomy in the operation of the school in exchange for adherence to
specific accountability requirements, and are limited to a set number of years. In
order to retain or renew its charter, a school must adhere to the accountability
requirements written into its charter and also must continue to attract enough students
to continue functioning as a viable school.
A public charter school may be accountable to a number of concerned actors,
both internal and external to the school, for a variety of actions or outcomes. This
report focuses on accountability relationships external to the school, such as those
involving students’ families, communities, and the broader society. Means through
which a charter school may be held accountable for specific actions or outcomes
include the terms of its charter, provisions in federal and state statutes that apply
generally to all schools or more specifically to all charter schools, and the satisfaction
of parents and community members.
Currently, 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have charter
school laws, and charter schools are operating in all but three of those states. Charter
schools are being held accountable for results, as outlined in charter agreements or
as required by federal and state law, by chartering agencies and state educational
agencies, although through somewhat differing means and to degrees of effectiveness
that vary from state to state. Charter schools also are being held accountable through
market mechanisms, such as parental satisfaction, with the result that many have
waiting lists while others have been forced to close because of insufficient
enrollment.
The federal government supports charter schools primarily through the Charter
Schools program, a competitive federal grant program administered by the U.S.
Department of Education which awards funds for charter schools that have met
certain eligibility, including accountability provisions. While in general public
charter schools have received broad support during the past several Congresses, a
proposal to legislate more rigid accountability requirements specific to public charter
schools was among a host of accountability issues debated during the recent
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Ultimately,
in passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) to reauthorize the ESEA, the
Congress voted to retain the Charter Schools program accountability requirements
as previously enacted, and to enact comprehensive accountability requirements that
will apply generally to each public school, irrespective of its charter status. As the
108th Congress oversees implementation of NCLBA accountability requirements, it
may pay close attention to the performance of charter schools.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Aspects of Charter School Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
To Whom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
For What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Charter School Accountability in the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Policy on Charter School Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Charter School Accountability Proposals Considered in H.R. 1
(107th Congress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Charter Schools Program Accountability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Public Charter School Accountability
Introduction
A public charter school is a publicly funded elementary or secondary school that
is operated according to the terms of a charter or contract granted by a public
chartering agency. The terms of a charter typically provide the charter school
operator with increased autonomy in how to operate the school, often including
exemption from, or flexibility in the application of, many of the state or local
regulations otherwise applicable to public schools in exchange for greater
accountability for results or outcomes. Charters usually are granted for a set number
of years, typically ranging from 5 to 15. In order to retain or renew its charter, a
school must adhere to the accountability requirements written into its charter and also
must continue to attract enough students to continue functioning as a viable school.
This report examines public charter school accountability, with a focus on the
federal role. In examining charter school accountability, however, we first consider
to whom, for what, and how charter schools are held accountable and then examine
how charter school accountability is being carried out in the states. We then provide
an overview of the federal role in charter school accountability and describe how
accountability provisions in the NCLBA (P.L. 107-110) apply to public charter
schools.
Aspects of Charter School Accountability
To Whom?
To whom charter schools are accountable is a complicated question, concerning
multiple types of accountability and involving relationships between a variety of
actors. First, accountability may be internal or external to a charter school.1 Internal
accountability concerns relationships operating within the school, such as between
a school governing board and teachers, and might involve the adherence to school
guidelines and procedures or to a specified curriculum. External accountability
concerns relationships between the school and outside actors. In regard to external
accountability, charter schools are accountable both to the broader society, through
1 For further discussion of internal and external accountability, see U.S. Department of
Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. A Study of Charter School
Accountability
, by Paul Hill et al., Center on Reinventing Public Education, June 2001.
(Hereafter cited as ED, Charter School Accountability). See also Vergari, Sandra. The
Regulatory Styles of Statewide Charter School Authorizers: Arizona, Massachusetts, and
Michigan, Educational Administration Quarterly, v. 36, no. 5, December 2000. pp. 730-
757, where bureaucratic and market accountability are described.

CRS-2
relationships between the school operator, the governing board, public chartering
agencies, and other government entities; and to individuals, through relationships
with students and parents. In this report, we focus on external accountability.
A key entity involved in holding charter schools accountable is the authorized
public chartering agency. Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico have charter school laws and each allows different agencies to grant school
charters. Agencies authorized under state laws to grant school charters include:
! local boards of education or school districts,
! state boards of education,
! state boards for charter schools,
! chief state school officers,
! independent school boards,
! intermediate school districts,
! county and municipal governments,
! vocational-technical school districts,
! public colleges and universities,
! community colleges, and
! private colleges and universities.
In some states, only local boards of education or school districts may charter schools,
while in others, only the state board of education or chief state school officer may
grant charters. In other states, the state board of education can approve a charter on
appeal of a decision by a local board or district. In about a quarter of states, multiple
agencies may grant school charters, while in some others, interdependent approval
is required, usually by both the local and state boards of education.2
Characteristics such as the number and type of public chartering agencies in a
particular state are significant in the application of school accountability. According
to the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Evaluation of the Public Charter
Schools Program
, the administration of accountability requirements appears to
depend partially on the size of the chartering agency. The study reports that, in
general, where the chartering agency is a larger, non-local agency responsible for all
or multiple charter schools — particularly state agencies — there is evidence of a
sound capacity to monitor accountability.3 In Massachusetts, for example, the state
Board of Education is the sole chartering agency and also is the agency responsible
for enforcing accountability requirements.4 This is held to simplify the accountability
process, because there is a clear line of accountability between the school and a
2 U.S. Department of Education. Office of the Under Secretary. Evaluation of the Public
Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation Report
, by Lee Anderson et al., SRI
International, December 2000, Exhibit L-1. p. 111 (hereafter cited as ED, Evaluation of the
Public Charter Schools Program
).
3 Ibid., p. 52-54.
4 Massachusetts has two types of charter schools — Commonwealth charter schools and
Horace Mann charter schools. Horace Mann charter schools first must be approved by a
local school committee, but both types of schools receive their charter from the state Board
of Education.

CRS-3
single, well-resourced accountability agency. In states with multiple independent
chartering agencies, the study reports, it becomes more difficult to monitor
accountability throughout the state. Local boards or agencies that charter only a few
schools generally are less well equipped to adequately monitor performance. As
chartering agencies mature, however, the ED report indicates that some have
demonstrated improvement. For example, in Michigan, a state with multiple
chartering agencies, Central Michigan University has undertaken efforts to improve
its processes for approving and reviewing charter schools after having been criticized
for being too lenient.5
As the number and type of entities authorized to charter schools vary across
states, so do the accountability relationships between charter schools and their
chartering agencies. While in some instances charter schools are directly accountable
only to the chartering agency, according to ED’s Evaluation of Charter Schools,
charter schools are accountable to more than one agency in most states.6 In the
majority of the states where only local educational agencies (LEAs) are authorized
to charter schools, ED found that both the chartering agency and the state educational
agency (SEA) were identified as being responsible for charter school accountability.7
In states with multiple chartering agencies and which allow for the treatment of
charter schools as independent LEAs, accountability relationships may involve a
charter school being accountable both to its chartering agency under the terms of its
charter, and also to the SEA for certain statewide requirements. In addition to the
charter schools themselves, most states also require chartering agencies to prepare
and submit reports on charter school accountability.
Charter schools are considered by some as having a direct accountability
relationship with parents and the community that typically is not present in
conventional public schools, by the necessity of their direct support in order to
continue to operate.8 Accountability to parents is most readily evident through their
opportunity to exercise school choice. Whereas, traditionally (though not always),
students attending a conventional public school have been assigned to a particular
school based on their place of residence, students who attend a public charter school
often have chosen to attend a school that draws students from a geographic area that
spans conventional school attendance areas or district boundaries.
According to some, the existence of charter schools as a choice for parents may
have the effect of making both charter and conventional public schools more directly
accountable to parents by providing them with more school choices, creating
competition between schools and resulting in only the best performing schools being
able to attract and retain students. Others remain skeptical that sufficient objective
information is available to allow parents to make informed decisions.9 In addition
5 ED, Charter School Accountability, p. 57.
6 ED, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program, p. 44.
7 Ibid., p. 45.
8 ED, Charter School Accountability, pp. 6-7.
9 However, under ESEA sec. 1111, states and LEAs are required to make publicly available
(continued...)

CRS-4
to the accountability relationships described above, charter schools also are
accountable to a variety of other actors such as teachers, unions, financial donors, and
community interests, but whose roles are not central to this discussion.
For What?
Charter schools may be held accountable for activities specific to the terms of
their charter. This may include the provision of a high quality education to students,
often measured in terms of meeting or exceeding state standards according to state
assessments, or in terms of performing better than other public schools at educating
similar students. It may include developing and adhering to a high quality and
innovative education curriculum that might not otherwise be available in
conventional public schools. It also may include providing educational opportunities
that meet the needs of students being ill-served in their current environment, such as
disadvantaged or at-risk youth. Charter schools also may be held accountable for
adhering to generally accepted financial and management practices. In addition to
the terms of a charter, a school may be held accountable for satisfying parents or
attracting and retaining enough students to justify the continued operation of a
school.
Charter schools also may be held accountable for activities of a general nature
and not specific to any school’s charter, such as adherence to federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations that are not subject to waiver, as well as statewide standards
and assessment goals. Such activities represent types of accountability that apply to
all public schools — conventional and charter alike. Activities for which all schools
are to be held accountable are likely to be those that are deemed by society as
essential to the successful operation of public schools. Some would argue that the
accountability requirements written into schools’ charters should specify results or
outcomes that are more demanding than those required of conventional public
schools. Others would argue that satisfying the terms of a school’s charter and
attracting a sufficient student body are the sole criteria by which charter schools
should be measured.
How?
The method by which a charter school is held accountable depends on state law,
and in general begins even before the school commences operations through the
charter review and approval process. This consists of reviewing and basing the
granting of a school charter on items such as a school’s proposed mission, education
plan, and curriculum; how the school will be innovative; how the school will be
financed; its facilities plan; and specific accountability requirements. In a few states,
chartering agencies have adopted rigorous charter approval processes to help ensure
9 (...continued)
“report cards” depicting the success of LEAs and public schools (to include charter schools)
at meeting ESEA accountability requirements. A discussion of requirements for school
report cards may be found in CRS Report RL31487, Education for the Disadvantaged:
Overview of ESEA Title I-A Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind Act
, by Wayne
Riddle.

CRS-5
that those schools granted charters are ready to succeed. Among such agencies are
the Massachusetts Board of Education and, more recently, some of the public
universities in Michigan.
As charter schools operate, they can be held accountable through a variety of
means, to include requiring:
! charter schools to prepare and update accountability plans and submit annual
reports;
! chartering agencies or other public entities to conduct periodic site visits and
to review reports and other information provided by charter school operators;
and
! the publication of information about charter schools, such as gains or declines
in students’ academic achievement, whether there is a waiting list or open
seats in the school, and whether the school gains accreditation.
As schools’ charters come up for renewal, chartering agencies are responsible
for conducting some degree of review, depending upon the terms of state law.
Typically the review process informs the decision of whether to renew or revoke a
school’s charter. In some states, agencies other than those granting school charters
also have a role in accountability, such as by setting and enforcing state academic
content standards and accountability requirements. Subject to the outcome of this
review, the chartering agency can renew or revoke a schools’s charter.
Chartering agencies can use a variety of methods and processes to review the
schools they charter. In some instances, chartering agencies have created, or
contracted with school inspection organizations such as in Chicago, Colorado, and
Massachusetts. The latter patterns its review process on the British school inspection
model.10 In other instances, diffuse responsibility spread across multiple agencies has
resulted in inconsistent application of accountability requirements. In some cases,
it appears that chartering agencies have lacked the capacity to do an adequate job of
monitoring and reviewing the schools they chartered and have been understaffed or
lacking in resources.11 Often times, insufficient or inconclusive data are available
with which to discern progress on student achievement tests so accountability must
be judged using other criteria.
10 Massachusetts Department of Education, The Massachusetts Charter School Initiative,
2001, p. 33.
11 A case in point is Arizona which allows multiple agencies to charter schools. According
to ED’s Evaluation of Charter Schools, “The Arizona State Board of Education employs
two staff members to oversee their 55 charter schools. Charter schools are only a small part
of the responsibilities of this department that also established educational policy for all
schools in Arizona. The State Board of Education has tried to tighten its application
process, but once a charter is awarded, they do little more than monitor the schools for
compliance” (p. 36). In addition, in Arizona, several districts charter schools that operate
outside of, and often far from, their district. These districts often are unable to adequately
monitor the schools they charter.

CRS-6
Only a small number of charter schools have been in existence long enough to
have had their charters subject to renewal and only a small fraction of these have had
their charters revoked for failure to meet performance accountability requirements.
Most of the few charter schools that have been forced to close were cited for failures
in financial or managerial accountability. Some argue that part of the reason for the
low number of school closures may be that the consequences of failure are so harsh
that chartering agencies lack the wherewithal to close an underperforming school that
might nonetheless be popular with parents.12 Others offer that a school should be
able to operate so long as it meets the demands of parents willing to choose it for
their children.
Charter School Accountability in the States
The manner and degree to which charter schools are held accountable vary from
one state to another and are influenced, in part, by federal requirements. ED’s
Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program finds that charter schools, in
general, are being held to accountability requirements that are the same or more
demanding than those for conventional public schools. This includes participation
in statewide assessments that measure the progress of charter school students in
meeting the state’s academic standards. Some state charter school laws specify that
school district accountability requirements also apply to public charter schools
located within certain districts. Thus, the administration of federal and state law and
policy appears, in practice, to have resulted in statewide standards and assessments
being applied to most public charter schools.
However, the authority through which public charter schools are held
accountable to state standards and assessments and the administration of corrective
action differs in each state. Reviews of state charter laws indicate that not all states
have statutory requirements, that cannot be waived, specifying the applicability of
statewide academic standards and assessments to all students attending charter
schools.13 Additionally, some analysts note that the accountability requirements
written into school charters can be vague or not substantive, despite accountability
being one of the central tenets of the charter school concept. This critique is widely
recognized and has resulted in calls for improvements in charter school
accountability processes. For example, the Center on Reinventing Public Education,
notes that many government agencies do not have clear accountability processes in
place for charter schools and that chartering agencies need to improve their methods
12 Bulkley, Katrina. Educational Performance and Charter School Authorizers: The
Accountability Bind. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 9, no. 37, October 1, 2001.
pp. 12-13. Accessed from Internet at [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n37.html], October 2,
2001.
13 See: American Federation of Teachers. Charter School Laws: Do They Measure Up?
August 1996; and Center for Education Reform. Charter School Legislation: State-by-State
Analyses. Accessed on November 6, 2001 at:
[http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws/states.htm].

CRS-7
of overseeing charter schools.14 Some charter school advocates, concerned about
current weaknesses in accountability systems, propose that charter schools adopt
transparent charter school accountability principles, modeled after the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) employed by private-sector firms.15
While, in general, the chartering agency is responsible to some degree for
ensuring that a charter school adheres to the accountability requirements of its
charter, in the majority of states, multiple agencies have some role in charter school
accountability, to include the SEA which is required under ESEA Title I, Section
1116(c) to annually review the progress of each LEA receiving Title I-A funds in
meeting the state’s performance standards described in its state plan.16 ED’s
Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program found that only in six states is the
chartering agency reported as the sole entity responsible for charter school
accountability. In 10 states, responsibility for charter school accountability resides
at the state level, while in 22 states, agencies at multiple levels of government are
responsible.17
Only in a few instances have charter schools been sanctioned for failure to
adhere to academic accountability requirements (as previously stated, most
accountability problems have been for financial or managerial reasons). ED’s
Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program reveals a small number of charter
schools being sanctioned because of poor student academic assessment levels (one
school closed, two not renewed, and one placed on probation, out of 837 schools
chartered by 48 agencies that were included in the study).18 The report does note,
however, that in states in which the authority to charter schools is limited to either
a state or local entity, charter schools are more likely to be sanctioned for
accountability purposes (for any reason, not just student performance) than are
charter schools in states in which multiple entities are authorized to charter schools.19
Thus, ED’s preliminary findings in its first year report are that chartering agencies
that are responsible for many schools are better equipped to monitor the
accountability of charter schools than are chartering agencies responsible for few
schools, and that charter schools in states with a single level of charter authority —
state or local — are more likely to be sanctioned for accountability purposes than are
charter schools in states with chartering entities at multiple levels of government.
14 Center on Reinventing Public Education. Expanding Charter School Accountability. The
Education Digest
, October 2001.
15 Manno, Bruno V., Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Gregg Vanourek. Charter School
Accountability: Problems and Prospects. Educational Policy, v. 14, no. 4, September 2000.
pp. 473-493. The authors propose that charter schools adopt Generally Accepted
Accountability Principles for Education (GAAPE).
16 It is ED’s policy to treat charter schools which are not part of conventional LEAs as
separate LEAs. Such charter schools are thus subject to SEA oversight regarding their
progress in meeting state performance standards and on statewide assessments.
17 ED, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program, p. 44-47.
18 Ibid., p. 57.
19 Ibid., p. 58.

CRS-8
Federal Policy on Charter School Accountability
The federal government provides support specifically for public charter schools
under ESEA through the Charter Schools Program (Title V-B-1), in which ED
awards competitive grants to SEAs or to charter school developers (in instances
where either the SEA declines to apply for a grant or the SEA’s application is
denied). Charter schools also may be funded under the following ESEA Title V
programs: Innovative Programs (Title V-A), through which funds may be used at the
state or local level for the planning, design, and initial implementation of charter
schools; and Voluntary Public School Choice Programs (Title V-B-3), through which
the cost of transporting students to charter schools may be funded.20 Additionally,
the federal government encourages public charter schools as an option for students
to transfer to if their school is identified for school improvement under Title I-A.
Charter schools also are eligible for grants under a wide range of ED programs, such
as Title I-A and IDEA, that are not aimed specifically at charter schools. While the
federal government actively supports public charter schools, it has not enacted
accountability requirements for all charter schools that are different from the
accountability provisions generally applicable to all schools under the ESEA.
However, the NCLBA amended the ESEA to specify that charter school
accountability is to be administered in accordance with state charter school law.
Charter School Accountability Proposals
Considered in H.R. 1 (107th Congress)

As the 107th Congress considered reauthorization of the ESEA, the Senate
passed H.R. 1 after incorporating a provision into Title I-A that would have required
a minimum amount of rigor in the accountability requirements that states applied to
charter schools. It stated:
Each State plan shall provide an assurance that the State’s accountability
requirements for charter schools (as defined in Section 5120), such as
requirements established under the State’s charter school law and overseen by
the State’s authorized chartering agencies for such schools, are at least as
rigorous as the accountability requirements established under this Act, such as
the requirements regarding standards, assessments, adequate yearly progress,
school identification, receipt of technical assistance, and corrective action, that
are applicable to other schools in the State under this Act. [Section
1111(b)(2)(H) — Senate]
This provision was dropped prior to enactment of the NCLBA. It would have
explicitly required each state to adopt accountability requirements for charter schools
that were at least as rigorous as those established under H.R. 1. While this provision
specifically addressed accountability requirements for charter schools, it does not
appear that absent it, accountability requirements for charter schools could have been
any less rigorous than those otherwise applicable to public schools in the state. In
20 Per-pupil Facilities Aid Programs, and Credit Enhancement Initiatives To Assist Charter
School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation also are authorized under ESEA,
Title V-B. However, no funds have been appropriated for these programs for FY2002.

CRS-9
lieu of the Senate proposal, the conference committee decided to add the following
language to the Title I-A accountability requirements:
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS.—The accountability
provisions under this Act shall be overseen for charter schools in accordance
with State charter school law. [Section 1111(b)(2)(K)]
Additionally, the following language was incorporated into the conference report:
Charter schools are public schools and therefore subject to the same
accountability requirements of this Act as they apply to other public schools,
including Sections 1111 and 1116, as developed in each state. However, there
is no intent to replace or duplicate the role of authorized chartering agencies, as
established under each state’s charter school law, in overseeing the Act’s
accountability requirements for the charter schools that they authorize.
Authorized chartering agencies should be held accountable for carrying out their
oversight responsibilities as determined by each state through its charter school
law and other applicable state laws. This should be done in ways that do not
inhibit or discourage the approval or oversight of innovative, high quality charter
schools.
The provision at Section 1111(b)(2)(K) and the language in the conference
report address concerns that absent the provision, there might have been some
ambiguity as to the role of authorized chartering agencies vis-à-vis SEAs in
overseeing ESEA accountability requirements for charter schools. During the ESEA
reauthorization, neither the House nor the Senate proposed to amend substantively
any of the accountability provisions of the Charter Schools program.
ESEA Title I-A Accountability Requirements
Under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLBA, no distinction is made between
conventional public schools and public charter schools in the application of the
accountability requirements prescribed in ESEA Title I-A. All public schools remain
subject to the same accountability requirements, with the exception that schools not
accepting Title I-A funds are not subject to school improvement and corrective action
requirements. According to ESEA Title I-A, each state plan for which funds are
awarded “shall demonstrate that the state has adopted challenging academic content
standards and challenging student academic achievement standards that will be used
by the State, its local educational agencies, and its schools.”21 In addition, each state
agency must have assessments that will be used to measure the success of local
educational agencies and schools in meeting its student academic standards for, at a
minimum, reading and math, and no later than school year 2007-2008, science. Each
school and LEA is required to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward all
students attaining proficiency by the end of school year 2013-2014, with results
reported according to required demographic subgroups.22 As previously mentioned,
21 ESEA Title I-A, Section 1111(b)(1).
22 For further information on elementary and secondary education accountability provisions,
see CRS Report RS21094, Adequate Yearly Progress Under ESEA Title I: Estimates for
(continued...)

CRS-10
enforcement of ESEA accountability requirements, as applicable to public charter
schools, is to be in accordance with state charter school law.
Charter Schools Program
Accountability Requirements
Federal law requires that charter schools funded under the Charter Schools
program be subject to state accountability requirements in accordance with ESEA
Title V-B-1, Section 5210, which defines the term “charter school” as a public school
that, while exempted from certain significant state or local rules, is bound by certain
federal requirements, including that it:
(C) operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by
the school’s developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;
and
* * *
(L) has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering
agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will
be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required
of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the
authorized public chartering agency and the charter school.
While no longer required under federal law, ED is completing a 4-year national
study and other evaluations of charter schools, as required under a provision that had
been a part of Public Charter Schools program prior to enactment of the NCLBA.
The purposes of these projects include the evaluation of charter schools’ impact on
student achievement, with results disaggregated according to student socioeconomic
characteristics, and the evaluation of charter schools’ impact on the professional
qualifications and turnover rate of teachers in charter schools.
22 (...continued)
Three States Based on Specifications in H.R. 1 Conference Agreement, by David P. Smole
and Wayne C. Riddle.