By: Casey McNally

As Arkansas falls behind the rest of the nation in teacher salaries, public school funding, and numerous other areas related to education, the state has also found a problem in keeping with the latest in education reform—charter schools. In the U. S., charter schools have spread like wildfire to include more than 1,674 schools since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1991. Arkansas adopted its charter school law in 1995 and was ranked by the Center for Education Reform as the 4^th "weakest" of 37 charter school laws in April 2000. "Weak" charter school laws are constituted as being limiting to the approval of charter applications and after five years and only four charter schools later, the charter law in Arkansas could stand to be loosened. Charter school operation in Arkansas is not only important for the sake of staying with reform trends but charter schools have been found to enhance student learning and motivate traditional public schools into creating a better learning environment everywhere. Charter school laws are constantly changing and by consulting some of the nation’s strongest charter laws, Arkansas may be able to revise its own charter law to be more inviting to the concept of the charter school.

School choice has been a major component of education through magnet schools, alternative schools, private schools, home schooling, and the ability of parents and students from different geographic areas to choose where they attend school.(NWREL 1999) These choices clearly answer the question "Should there be choice in public schools?" The questions raised next concern the policies by which the intent of the choice movement, and therefore charter schools, is to be realized. There are now 37 states that have working charter school laws which are reevaluated and amended nearly every year to make way for changes in politics, education, and local government. Even with the many different versions and changes among charter school laws, the charter movement is defined with several "purposes" as set forth during the 1997 National Charter School Conference. (NWREL 1999)

• Charters are to do what the public schools already do—just better.
• Charter schools are to do something different.

• Charter schools provide viable alternatives for the "square pegs" in the system.

• Charter schools provide a testing ground for the new governance methods.

• Charter schools provide a testing ground for innovative teaching and learning.

• Charter schools can provide a choice for all parents and students.

• Charter schools provide competition to the traditional public school system.

• Charter schools provide for increases accountability, both internally and in traditional public schools

• Charter schools provide the mechanisms for organizational changes, allowing opportunity for parents and teachers to teach what they want.

• Charter schools provide the impetus for system wide change and reform.

Whether controversy revolves around charter opportunity, public choices, or accountability, the charter movement is quickly being seen as the solution to the problems regarding general public education reform. Along with the purposes above, charter laws must encompass the universal charter school concept of "autonomy for accountability." In general, charter schools are public schools that are granted a specific amount of autonomy (as determined by the state law or local charter) to make the decisions concerning the organizational structure, curriculum, and educational emphasis of the school. (NWREL 1999) Charters are sometimes granted waivers from certain regulations that bind public schools; and, in return for this autonomy, the charter schools are held accountable for the academic achievement of their students.

Generally, charters do not have admission requirements, and the public monies normally follow students directly to the charter school. In Arkansas, by law, the definition of "charter" is "a performance-based contract for an initial three-year period that converts a public school to a charter school or authorizes the creation and conditional operation of an open-enrollment [or new start] charter school, which exempts the charter school from state and local rules, regulations, policies, and procedures specified in the contract and from provisions of Title 6 of the Arkansas code specified in the contract. The duration of the charter can be modified by the State Board of Education any time." (Arkansas Law 1999) Later the actual charter law of Arkansas will be examined, and it will be seen that charter schools in Arkansas actually have no exemption from state and district laws and regulations. The Arkansas state law also defines a "charter school" as "a public school that is operating under the terms of a charter granted to either a public school or an open enrollment charter school by the school board." There are two main types of charter schools approved in Arkansas which are also defined by the charter school bill. Open-enrollment schools are newly created charter school that may draw students from across district borders. Conversion schools are schools already in existence that apply for charter status. Public schools are allowed to convert to charter schools in Arkansas but private school are not approved for conversion.

Many states define "charter" and "charter school" similarly to Arkansas’s law but many other aspects of the laws help classify the laws as "strong" or "weak". The Center for Education Reform (CER) has taken on the task of evaluating and ranking all 37 charter school laws in the United States. The CER last graded each state’s charter law in 2000 by assigning each law with a grade of A, B, C, D, or F, according to numerical scores. The ranking process will be explained after the more general classification of "strong" or "weak" is understood. As previously stated, a "weak" charter law is one that provides few opportunities or incentives for charter school development. On the other hand, a "strong" law is one that fosters the development of numerous, genuinely independent charter schools. The strength of a charter law also lies in its friendliness to read and understand. Some even say that the best law is one that "is no more than a few pages in length and clearly lays out the important goals, freedoms, and restrictions, leaving implementation up to the various state and local agencies involved" (CER 2000).

Since the CER offers the only comprehensive evaluation of the nation’s charter school laws, there are no sources for comparison or argument. So, even though the rankings are arguable, they are backed up by a sound ranking system and the ability of each law "to provide the maximum capacity and flexibility within a state to yield the establishment of highly successful charter schools." (CER 2000) There are ten categories used to break the laws up into easily evaluated pieces. These categories are as follows:

• number of schools allowed
• multiple chartering authorities
• eligible charter applicants
• new starts allowed
• school may be started without evidence of local support
• automatic waiver from state and district laws
• legal/operational autonomy
• guaranteed full per-pupil funding
• fiscal autonomy
• exempt from collective bargaining agreement/district work rules

The charter laws are ranked in each one of these categories on a scale from 0 to 5. Table 1 shows the criteria, scores, and rankings for each of the charter laws. The criteria are ranked based on the laws’ support or restriction of charter school development; or, in the case of recently amended laws, the likelihood of the law to do so. The maximum score that a law can receive is a 50 (10 x 5). The final score that a charter law receives is actually a combination of averaged scores assigned by individuals who serve on a panel of experts. This year’s panel was composed of Jeanne Allen, President of the Center of Education Reform; Linda Brown, Director of the Pioneer Institute Charter School Resource Center; Chester Finn, President of the Fordham Foundation; John M. Olin, Fellow of the Hudson Institute. The panel was advised by Bruno Manno, senior fellow with the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, Maryland.

The criteria of each law were further evaluated by the law’s intent or effect on the state, and its potential and applicability. While the number if schools opened under the laws is reflective of its "strength," states that cap the number of approved schools are evaluated by the percentage of possible schools that are actually opened. Despite the challenges that accompany rating such complex laws, the extent to which each state fosters meaningful charter activity varies. Table 1 provides a good idea of the extent to which each state fosters meaningful charter activity. This legislative analysis serves merely as a guidepost to the type of charter activity possible under those certain legislative conditions. The CER ranking is provided as a means of comparison from which forthcoming amendments and legislation can be fashioned. A new charter state seeking to avert problems and potholes would want to avoid the roadblocks that low scoring states have encountered. It is important to also keep in mind that the number one impediment to effective charter school legislation is lack of awareness and understanding of the details and repercussions that come from various policies. Those repercussions are important to note in studying the legislative paths taken by other states. Any state that is unsatisfied with its ranking by the CER should take action through the research of the higher ranked charter laws to create a more well-rounded charter law.

Once the average scores for each criteria are calculated to get a final score, the rank and "grade" for each state law can be determined. The highest numerical score possible is a 50 and the lowest score possible is zero. The "grades" are ascertained by the following scores; 40 – 50 = A, 30 – 39 = B, 20 - 29 = C, 10 – 19 = D, and 0 – 9 = F. The scores also determine the ranking of each charter law from one to 37 of the 37 charter laws. The highest scored law is ranked number one and the lowest scored law is ranked 37^th. To better understand the scoring and ranking system created by the CER, several laws from each grade have been selected for a spotlight review. The charter laws critiqued here from "grade A" are Minnesota and Washington D.C. The charter laws observed from "grade B" are Colorado and Oklahoma. The laws from "grade C" are Georgia and Indiana. New Mexico and Virginia are examples of charter laws in "grade D." The final "grade" and state is Mississippi with a "grade F." Since Arkansas received a "grade D," it will be closely evaluated so that suggestions from other laws may be made for amendments in the Arkansas law. The scores can be easily reviewed and compared to Table 1 entitled Charter School Legislation: State Rankings.(CER 2000)

Minnesota received a "grade A" and a rank of three as determined by its overall score of 45. Since Minnesota received such a high ranking, it will be studied more deeply than the other states’ laws. The Minnesota charter law received a perfect score of five in four of the ten categories. The category "number of schools allowed" received a five because an unlimited number of charter schools are allowed, which definitely fosters the development of new schools. The category for "eligible applicants" also received a score of five because it allows for anyone to file a charter petition. Because the state of Minnesota grants "automatic waivers from state and district laws," this category also received a score of five. These waivers allow for more flexibility in the approval of charter schools, leading to the development of more charter schools. The final category in which Minnesota received a score of five is "fiscal autonomy." This charter law allows for complete fiscal autonomy from the district with funds coming from federal and start-up grants equaling the average per-pupil expenditure allowed by the state (about $6,000). These funds are paid directly to the school, which also contributes to the perfect score for "fiscal autonomy." These categories all received perfect scores because they in no way inhibit the development of charter schools. After evaluation of the Arkansas charter school law, these "perfect criteria" will definitely top the list of amendment suggestions.

The remaining scores for Minnesota weren’t far below perfect, and the few points that were lost are arguably justified (as if the whole ranking weren’t controversial). The category ranking for "eligible chartering authorities" only scored a 4.5 because the law lists only local school boards, public post-secondary institutions, private colleges, and cooperatives as chartering approval authorities. All these authorities are subject to state boards of education, approval which may be granted on appeal from other authorities. This list of approval authorities apparently warrants the minus half point score because the category doesn’t list everyone as a chartering authority. The category of "new starts allowed" was also scored minus half a point because converted public, converted private, and new start schools are allowed but home-based schools are not eligible for charter school status. That category warrants a less than perfect score for not allowing home-based charter school development. The Minnesota law also lost one and a half points because it required "formal evidence of local support." This category means that for Minnesota charter school conversions, sixty percent of the licensed personnel at the school must approve of the charter. This may prevent the development of conversion charters where faculty do not support the change. Apart from being fiscally autonomous, the laws are also scored by their "legal/operational autonomy." This category lost half a point because even though each school is granted complete legal autonomy from the district and state boards, there are restrictions on types of management organizations that can run the school. The charters in Minnesota cannot be granted directly to for-profit organizations, but the charter school may contract with for-profit organizations to run the school. This obviously limits the development of charters through restriction of management. The next category that came up short of points is the criterion that ranks the "funding per-pupil." There were one and a half points lost here because even though the state average for per-pupil revenue is required to follow each student, the district allotment per-pupil is lost because after-all, the school has fiscal autonomy from the district. This aspect of Minnesota’s law may not hinder the actual development of a charter school but may be detrimental to the function of the school after it has opened. The final category in which Minnesota lost points ranks the charter law in negotiations of "district work rules with exemptions from collective bargaining." The teachers of the charter school have the choice to negotiate work rules as a separate unit with the charter governing body or independent the charter altogether. The half point loss comes if the charter bargaining unit chooses to remain part of the district unit, which may only be approved if teachers, the charter school governing board, local school board, and the teacher’s union in the district agree on the situation. Again, this aspect of Minnesota’s charter law may not inhibit the development of charter schools but may cause problems among faculty after the school is opened.

Each criterion in Minnesota’s law has now been evaluated for its contribution to the "strength" or "weakness" of the law. The weaknesses are few and far between, but the strengths are the focus here since the strong attributes will be suggested to help amend the Arkansas law. The next laws will be evaluated a little differently. Washington D.C., which also received a "grade A" will be spotlighted for the strengths that Minnesota lacked and its major weakness. The two "grade B" laws, Colorado and Oklahoma, will be spotlighted for their major weaknesses and strengths so that these can be compared to Arkansas law. The "grade C" laws will be evaluated in much the same way and the "grade D" laws will be compared for their major strengths and weaknesses even though they each have very low scoring criteria. Mississippi only received one score higher than zero and that will be analyzed as well.

Minnesota pioneered the charter school reform in 1991 and has had time since then to revise and perfect their efforts. Washington D.C. may not have introduced a charter law until 1996, but it still manages to rank 4^th directly behind Minnesota. Like Minnesota, D.C. also scores perfect in four categories although they are different categories. The perfect scored categories include "eligible charter applicants," "new starts allowed," "automatic waiver from state and district laws," and "exemption from collective bargaining agreement/district work rules." There is one strange contradiction in the scoring because Minnesota and D.C. each has the same policy on "new start" charter schools, but D.C. received a score of five while Minnesota only received a score of 4.5. Both states allowed for converted public and private schools as well as new starts, but neither allows for home-based conversions. This discrepancy can be attributed to the affect of this policy in each state (or District in this case) on the number of charter schools and operational autonomy. In other words, this specific policy may be affecting other parts of the charter law as a whole that could inhibit the development of charter schools. The CER was right in disclaiming their ranking as complex. The D.C. charter law received a five for allowing teachers to negotiate work rules as a separate unit within the chartering body or as independently. Recall that Minnesota required approval from different district authorities if the teachers were to bargain within their district. D.C. received several scores of 4.5 but their lowest score is a three for the category "evidence of local support." D.C.’s charter law requires approval from two-thirds of teachers, two-thirds of parents of students from under-represented populations, and two-thirds of adult students from the existing school. This really restricts the approval of a conversion charter school if there are radical issues in a district. This policy also discounts the opinion of others affected by the possible charter school. One more important issue with the D.C. ranking of 4^th in the nation is that Minnesota and D.C. both received total scores of 45, yet Minnesota was ranked higher. This situation also occurs at two other places in the scoring and the higher ranking was given to the oldest law even though at first it looked as if the preference had gone to the state with the higher number of charter schools.

Move away from the "grade A" laws and onto the "grade B," where the laws from Colorado and Oklahoma are spotlighted. The Colorado charter law received a score of 36.5 which ranked the state’s law as 13^th. The aspect of this law that received the lowest score was "legal/operational autonomy." This property of Colorado’s law is fairly inhibitory for the development of charter schools because it requires that charters officially be part of the local school district with an option for non-profit organizations to propose a charter so that they may operate with considerable autonomy. The law does not require that funding and services between the school and district be negotiated. The state received scores of three in the categories of "chartering authorities" and "evidence of local support." Only local school boards can approve the charters for new or converted public schools. The law in Colorado is very vague in the specifics that require evidence of local support in that it only requires an "adequate" amount of teacher, parent, and student approval. The vagueness in this law is the main reason for the low score, but it is also fairly restrictive. The other two areas of weakness in Colorado law earned the charter law two 3.25 scores. The "type of charter schools allowed" can only be public conversion schools or new starts. While there are no automatic waivers available for charters from state or district laws, but the availability of the waivers from the state instituted statutes may come in wholesale. This means that several laws and regulations may be waived at one time by the state. The waivers from the state are invariably granted upon request, while the district policies are easily negotiated by the districts. The absence of automatic waivers may inhibit some charter development; but, the fact that waivers are still required yet easily obtained, only shows how outdated and useless the policy has become. The remaining unnamed categories in Colorado’s law all scored above 3.75 and contain the same problems found in Minnesota or Washington D.C. The state did make several changes to its charter in March 1999, which raised the law from 12^th in 1998 to its current rank of 13^th in 2000.

Oklahoma approved its charter law in only 1999 and makes its first appearance in the ranking as 18^th of the 37. Oklahoma, unlike Colorado, obtained perfect scores in two categories including "eligible chartering applicants" and "evidence of local support". The state allows for any person or organization to apply for a charter and does not require proof of local charter support. However, the state received a score of one because the charter schools in Oklahoma have no legal autonomy. The category of "number of schools allowed" with a score of 2.5 because the state limits the number of schools in a district only if there are fewer that 5,000 students and 500,000 population. Even though areas with more than 5,000 students and 500,000 in population allow an unlimited number of charters, these areas only include Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which means this is a fairly restrictive law. This charter law was also penalized because it allows only for limited "waivers from district and state laws." Although the reason for this penalty was discussed earlier, it restricts its charter activity because the charters are still under state and district control. The remaining four categories all received median scores.

The "grade C" group obviously holds more weaknesses, but again the strengths are the main focus; hence, they will be suggested for Arkansas law amendments. The fact that the "C" laws may have lower scores than previous schools, but still maintain a stronghold in some categories says a lot for those criteria that keep these laws in the "C" class. The criteria ranking the lowest for these laws may indicate a problem area for charter school laws in general and may be the hardest criteria to control.

The two "C" class schools chosen were Georgia and Idaho. Georgia’s law was originally created in 1993 and is ranked 22 among charter laws. Idaho charter law holds the 25^th position and was introduced in 1998. These two laws have two of their lowest scoring categories in common. Georgia received a one and Idaho a three though both only allow local school boards to approve charter school status. Idaho has made some provisions in its law to allow for appeal to that State’s board of education for approval-hence the slightly higher score. Both states received a zero score for "legal/operational autonomy" of charter schools. Neither state allows for any legal autonomy, and nor does either state law allow for management or operation by for-profit organizations. Idaho also received a one because the state requires an approval of 60% of teachers and 60% of parents for conversions and a petition signed by more than 30 qualified electors in a district. The middle scores that each state received were on the lower end but each state law did retain at least one high ranked category. Georgia’s law found some strength by not assigning a limit to the number of charter schools allowed. Georgia had another score of five because it offers complete exemption of charter schools from state and district laws and regulations. Idaho found strength with a high score of 4.8 because it allows public school conversions and new starts along with some exceptional approval for private school conversions. This score may be inconsistent with previously evaluated law aspects and scores but, again, that is the problem with a complex ranking system. These "C" class schools would do best to keep the strongest aspects of their laws while enhancing their lower scoring law components.

Class "D" charters have much to be desired. The two schools spotlighted here are New Mexico and Virginia. The scores from these two states vaguely mirror each other even though they did not receive the exact same scores. They each scored above one in the same categories and below one in the remaining categories. These scores are more similar to Arkansas law because New Mexico charter law is ranked 30^th while Virginia is ranked only one step below Arkansas as 35^th. These laws were lacking in the categories of "waivers from district and state laws," "exemption from collective bargaining agreement/district work rules," and "legal/operational autonomy". The latter criterion was a weakness for all of "B," "C," and "D" class schools. The others were either strengths or mediocre trends among the rest of the "D" class scores. These strengths were not well represented by scores; and, because of their low ranking, the Arkansas law wouldn’t benefit from an incorporation of their "highest of the low" policies. Arkansas can follow the trends of this class by maintaining the higher scoring categories while, once again, trying to enhance their categories that receive no scores at all. It is important to note that Virginia had no charter schools in the spring of 2000.

The final "F" class only includes one state law, Mississippi’s. This charter law is so restrictive that Mississippi received "0" in nine categories and only scored a 1.3 total. The only scoring category allows for automatic waivers for charters from district and state laws except where specified by charter laws, which covers quite a bit to receive a score of 1.3. Where the law is not restrictive, it is very vague. This law definitely has problems because their 1997 law ranked last even in 1998 and no amendments have occurred. Mississippi could at least try to participate in this education reform, considering the fact that where Arkansas doesn’t place last in an area of education related topics, Mississippi does. Arkansas can honestly anticipate no help from Mississippi’s law while looking for amendment advice. Sadly enough, Mississippi could get help even from Arkansas.

Since Arkansas charter law is the whole reason for this comprehensive evaluation, Arkansas law will be evaluated category by category, while suggestions are made from higher ranking states to amend the Arkansas law. Certain considerations will need to be made for feasibility of some of the amendment suggestions. State population, percentages of rural and urban areas, per-capita income, and state education legislations, are just a few characteristics that should be closely comparable to those characteristics of Arkansas. Even though it has been mentioned that legislatures should focus on the lower scoring categories while maintaining the higher scores, while a few of the category are given a "facelift," the rest will also receive suggestions for improving the state’s overall scores.

Arkansas’s law was introduced in 1995 and amended in 1999 even though its rank has remained 34^th through both the 1998 and 2000 rankings. The CER reported that there were no charter schools opened in Spring 2000 but in fact there was at least one charter school opened at that time. The Arkansas charter law allows for twelve open-enrollment (new start) schools, with no more than three per congressional district, but put no limit on the member of conversion schools to be approved. This policy earns the category a score of 2.5. The highest ranked "number of schools allowed" policy is in Minnesota. Minnesota received a five because it allows for an unlimited number of charter schools. Arkansas must be sensitive to certain desegregation laws that are still in affect across much of the South. An unlimited school policy around areas of high population but low-minority school attendance may disrupt the desegregation guidelines that are so carefully, and sometimes with great difficulty, followed to prevent punishment from the state. Even though the score of Oklahoma’s policy on this issue is not very high, it is more feasible for implementation into Arkansas school districts. A population cap on a limited number of schools could help other public schools abide more easily to the desegregation laws. This would also prevent charter schools from trying to offer choice in high-risk areas where the school attendance isn’t high enough to really support two schools in that area. Therefore, Oklahoma has the best fitting policy for Arkansas as far as the number of schools is concerned.

The Arkansas policy concerning "multiple chartering authorities" is somewhat complicated and received a score of one. Local school boards are the first approval authorities for new starts and the first and final approval authority for conversions. If a conversion is denied approval from the local school board, that charter applicant has no options for appeal. New starts may appeal to the State Board of Education if denied at the local level and receive approval to create an open-enrollment charter school. The Minnesota component of this charter law is very similar to Arkansas’s law, but public and private colleges as well as educational cooperatives (co-ops) have the ability to approve charters even though subject to the State Board of Education’s approval in Minnesota. The low numbers of post-secondary institutions in Arkansas create a problem for feasibility in implementing this type of policy. But, the approval from cooperatives would greatly strengthen the Arkansas charter law because the co-ops are closely connected to the schools in their operating area and the co-ops would better know the effect of a new charter or conversion charter school on the surrounding schools. For the higher ranked schools, this category was a problem area and a combination of pre-existing laws and creativity may be necessary for Arkansas.

The next category to be evaluated from Arkansas’s charter law received a 2.5 because its policy restricts "eligible applicants" for a charter to non-profit organizations, governments, and colleges. Public and private conversion schools must be created by a district. Again there are very few colleges in Arkansas, so the greatest number of charters has been approved for non-profit organizations and some city governments. For the most part, this category is a strong point for many of the laws. Both "A" class states evaluated here received scores of five for their policies in this aspect of the law because they allow almost anyone to apply for a charter. There should not be any problems in Arkansas to prevent any group from receiving charter approval in Arkansas as opposed to approval in Minnesota or Washington, D.C. Opening eligibility for charter application up to anyone does not seem as though it would be a problem in Arkansas and it would definitely help move Arkansas law up the ranks.

Arkansas received its highest score of 3.5 for allowing public/private conversions and new starts. The approval of conversions strictly by local school boards may affect the score of this policy because, even though the law allows for them, their approval is rare. Even though Washington, D.C. does not approve of the conversion of home-based schools to charter schools, this aspect of D.C.’s law received a five. Arkansas law may be perfectly adequate in this policy of charter law but may want to loosen up the approval of conversions that may slightly affect the policy.

Arkansas received yet another 2.5 score because a public hearing is required as "formal evidence of local support." The public hearing itself is not to determine the approval, but to voice the opinions of the community about the possibility of a charter school. The local school board may take the concerns from the public hearing into consideration when deliberating final approval which comes from the board. The fact that the hearing has no direct affect on approval earns this policy its score. Most laws have had some problems in this category but Oklahoma hit a score of five because no proof of local support is required there. Local support is extremely important to school success. So those state policies that require some local support while sacrificing points are the better laws. Arkansas has the right ideas about local support, but a qualitative measurement of local support may be required to affect charter approval in a more positive way.

Arkansas now scores its first zero because it does not allow for waivers from district and state laws, and any exemptions from particular laws, regulations, and policies must be specified in charters. This causes a real problem for schools that are trying to be innovative and creative with curriculum. About half of all state laws evaluated actually mastered this category. Minnesota and D.C. both allowed automatic complete waivers from state and district laws which is much easier to deal with if the school is creating a dynamic new curriculum. States that received a five for this policy have laws that have been established for at least five years. These states may have taken small steps in legislation to grant automatic waivers so that new schools would use the examples of the older schools even though these newer school laws have more flexibility. Several of the middle scoring policies like Colorado and Oklahoma have limited waivers or a application process by which waivers can be granted. Limited waivers may be the way for Arkansas to start loosening its law. Even though the full five points would not be received, the middle three point score is better than a score of zero. Arkansas may consider using an incremental approach on this law to the full automatic waivers as to control the general attitude that charters have about restricting policy.

The fact that Arkansas allows for no "legal/operational autonomy" earns this law another zero score. For every law evaluated here, this category has been the lowest scoring for each state. Granted, there were several perfect scores awarded up the line for other laws but it is obvious here that states don’t want to give up much legal autonomy to the charter school. Arkansas could budge a bit by allowing varied autonomy or by at least allowing autonomy as determined in the actual charter. Charter schools allowed to be independent legal entities can own property, sue and be sued, incur debt, control budget and personnel, and contract services—which encourages charter development. With the state and district looking over the shoulder of the charter school, the restrictions on policy are endless. Most of the states do allow for a little autonomy but to completely restrict a school from these controls hinders the school operation. Arkansas could offer a little more freedom for charter schools in this area to greatly improve the strength of this law overall.

The profile provided by the CER of the Arkansas law says that the funding amount per-pupil is to be determined by the charter but the actual law in Arkansas does not leave funding to the charter. Public school conversions will receive the average per-pupil payment apportioned by the district from the state and local revenue according to the average daily membership. The new state charter schools will only receive funds equal to the minimum state and local revenues per average daily membership at the school. Initial funds are determined by the enrollment of the school by April 15^th, preceding the year that students are to attend. The score for this aspect of Arkansas may have been inappropriate if the CER believed that the funding decisions were to be made by the charter itself. The law received a 1.3 but funding availability for charters is available at adequate levels even though the actual law is at places vague and slightly complicated. This property of Arkansas law should be scored higher because of the actual funding availability. Even though full funding could be awarded, this law could still stand strong if it remains as it is.

Charter schools in Arkansas have no fiscal autonomy for which they can control their own budgets, but rather the control lies in the hands of the governing district. This seems to be a type of check and balance for the charter schools in Arkansas because the state will assume ownership of the charter school property upon its dissolution unless otherwise stated in the charter. This clause puts pressure on the district to retain its charter school unless it wants to lose all the property of the school. Other states have just simply granted charter schools full fiscal autonomy or limited district control over the fiscal matters of the charter school. Since the general attitude toward charter schools in Arkansas is becoming more positive this restriction should definitely be loosened to show the growing approval of charter schools by governing districts.

Arkansas charter law receives its final zero score for requiring charter school to be covered in all collective bargaining agreements and district work rules. This is highly restrictive for faculty at charter schools. Most laws scored fairly high in the category but scores dropped drastically in the "grade D" group with all laws receiving a zero. The charter law ranked closest to Arkansas with a score of above zero is Idaho with a score of four. The staff of Idaho charter schools is considered as a separate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. This gives the faculty autonomy but the staff could be given choice of whether or not to bargain with districts like D.C.’s law does. The teachers at charter schools in D.C. negotiate as a separate unit to work independently with a choice to work with the district. This property is ideal because it is the most flexible to teacher needs. Incorporating this choice into Arkansas law may take a while but an incremental approach could again be used to ease the state legislation into the place it needs to be.

The charter school law in Arkansas isn’t going to change overnight, and there are several policies that the State Board of Education isn’t going to agree to easily; but because other states are already trying new policies, Arkansas should at least jump on their coattails and start developing stronger pieces of legislation. The school choice movement is growing stronger, and charter schools are at the forefront. Arkansas started out behind the rest of the nation in most areas concerned with education, but charter school amendments could put the state closer to the top before it falls behind and is never able to catch up. The state is attuning quickly to the charter school concept, with four new charter schools proposed in the fall of 2000 and more for the fall of 2001. Because of stifling regulations, some of them will never open their doors in Arkansas. Those schools that will open next year have leaders with a great deal of determination and compassion for the students that the new charter schools will service. This has been a tedious evaluation, but much was learned and hopefully much more will be taken to heart.

Brown, Argue, Riggs, Roebuck, and Russ, Senators. "The Arkansas Charter Schools Act of 1999." Presented in 82^nd General Assembly in Regular Session of 1999.

The Center Education Reform. Charter School Laws: Rankings 2000. Fall 1998.

Lane, Brett. Choice Matters: Policy Alternatives and Implications for Charter Schools. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR; October 1999.

Nathan, Joe. "Charter School: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education." Josey-Bass Publishers, San Fransico; 1999.

Overview of Charter Schools. www.uscharterschools.org. 2000.