Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.710.200 (2026)
Charter contracts—Revocation or refusal to renew
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An authorizer may revoke a charter contract at any time, or may refuse to renew it, if the authorizer determines that the charter school did any of the following or otherwise failed to comply with the provisions of this chapter:
(a) Committed a material and substantial violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards, or procedures required under this chapter or the charter contract;
(b) Failed to meet or make sufficient progress toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter contract;
(c) Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or
(d) Substantially violated any material provision of law from which the charter school is not exempt.
(2) Except as provided otherwise by this subsection (2), an authorizer may not renew a charter contract if, at the time of the renewal application, the charter school's performance falls in the bottom quartile of schools on the Washington achievement index developed by the state board of education under RCW 28A.657.110. A contract may be renewed without violating this subsection (2), however, if the charter school demonstrates exceptional circumstances that the authorizer finds justifiable.
(3) Each authorizer must develop revocation and nonrenewal processes that:
(a) Provide the charter school board with a timely notification of the prospect of and reasons for revocation or nonrenewal;
(b) Allow the charter school board a reasonable amount of time in which to prepare a response;
(c) Provide the charter school board with an opportunity, at a recorded public proceeding held for that purpose, to submit documents and give testimony challenging the rationale for closure and in support of the continuation of the school;
(d) Allow the charter school board to be represented by counsel and to call witnesses on its behalf; and
(e) After a reasonable period for deliberation, require a final determination to be made and conveyed in writing to the charter school board.
(4) If an authorizer revokes or does not renew a charter contract, the authorizer must clearly state in a resolution the reasons for the revocation or nonrenewal.
(5) Within ten days of taking action to renew, not renew, or revoke a charter contract, an authorizer must submit a report of the action to the charter school and the state board of education. The report must include a copy of the authorizer's resolution setting forth the action taken, the reasons for the decision, and assurances of compliance with the procedural requirements established by the authorizer under this section.
[ 2016 c 241 s 120. Prior: 2013 c 2 s 220 (Initiative Measure No. 1240, approved November 6, 2012).]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: League of Women Voters of Washington v. State, 355 P.3d 1131 (Wash. 2015).
League of Women Voters of Washington v. State, 355 P.3d 1131 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). ¶33 Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
League of Women Voters of Wash. v. State (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
League of Women Voters of Wash. v. State (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.710.200(2) — 3 cases
League of Women Voters of Washington v. State, 355 P.3d 1131 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). ¶33 Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
League of Women Voters of Wash. v. State (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
League of Women Voters of Wash. v. State (Wash. 2015). “RCW 28A.710.200(2). Funding for a charter school is tied to student enrollment, and the Superintendent allocates funding to charter schools using the same formulas that are applied to traditional public schools.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.