articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/221117-philadelphia-charter-schools-unexecuted-charter-contracts-are-a-unique-risk-12563763 content esgSubNav
In This List

Philadelphia Charter Schools: Unexecuted Charter Contracts Are A Unique Risk


Cyber Risk Insights: Recession Pressures Could Expose More U.S. Public Finance Issuers To Cyber Attacks


Table Of Contents: S&P Global Ratings Credit Rating Models


Charter School Brief: Tennessee


U.S. Public Sector Cyber Risk Is Mainstream Now, Says Seminar

Philadelphia Charter Schools: Unexecuted Charter Contracts Are A Unique Risk

There are many unique characteristics of the charter school sector, with charter authorization risk a primary consideration within our rating criteria. A charter school requires a charter agreement to operate, and its ability to maintain uninterrupted approval to do so through consecutive contract renewal periods is imperative. Within our rated universe, the charter renewal framework for authorizers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a notable outlier. While many of our ratedPennsylvania schools continue to exhibit healthier demand and financial metrics than peers and medians at respective rating levels, the operating environment in Pennsylvania commonly constrains Pennsylvania charter school ratings in comparison with other states.

Chart 1


For over a decade, we have noted concerns with the operating and authorizing environment for charter schools within the commonwealth, particularly within the SDP. Some of the factors contributing to the complexity of the authorizer relationships over time include the rate of charter enrollment growth, demographic shifts, state funding volatility, and the SDP's budget pressures (including its distressed financial position, which resulted in state control from 2001-2018). While some of the challenges of the operating environment related to legislation and funding are endemic to the commonwealth, much of our concerns about charter standing rest with Philadelphia-based charter schools. Additionally, Philadelphia is distinct when it comes to charter renewals, given that there is a long history of charter schools operating with unsigned charter agreements for varying reasons. We understand most schools are working in collaboration with the SDP toward finalizing their respective charter agreements and expect to achieve resolution in the near term. However, in the past, many of these negotiation proceedings have extended over multiple years. Moreover, these discussions can be prolonged, depending on the level of discord around the contract terms. Because of these factors, this commentary primarily focuses on charter schools in Philadelphia that are authorized by the SDP.

Statutory Framework

Pennsylvania charter framework
  • In Pennsylvania, local school districts act as the authorizer for brick-and-mortar charter schools, while cyber/virtual charter schools are authorized directly by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE).
  • Charter schools in Pennsylvania receive per-pupil revenues from the local school districts based on the per-pupil subsidy formula funded by the state for that particular school district.
  • Kindergarten-through-grade 12 (K-12) funding follows the student, which means that the district must remit funding at the same level for students living within its jurisdiction, regardless of where the student attends school.
  • In our view, relationships between authorizers and charter schools vary greatly, with some supportive and some severely restrictive or antagonistic, given the inherent conflict of interest for school districts that compete for the same students and the related per-pupil revenue.
  • For more information on the statutory framework and funding of charter schools in Pennsylvania, please see our most recently published Pennsylvania Charter School Brief here.
Authorization and renewal process: School District of Philadelphia CSO

In chart 2 below, we have mapped out our understanding of the CSO's charter renewal process. Following completion of the renewal application and review by the CSO, an official recommendation is made at the SDP's board meeting during the spring of the renewal year. If a charter school is recommended for renewal, its board is presented a renewal contract to sign. This contract may be granted with or without conditions. These conditions reflect changes to the contract suggested by the authorizer. If signed, the contract enters a pre-execution stage that requires certain additional documentation to be provided by the school to the SDP. Once the SDP determines it has received sufficient documentation, it then moves to execute the contract as early as its next board meeting, schedule permitting. Based on our understanding of the renewal stages, we categorize the charter status of our rated schools as: executed, unsigned, unexecuted, expired, or nonrenewed (see table 1).

Table 1

S&P Global Ratings Definitions of Charter Status
Executed: The school's contract is finalized and no further action is required with regards to the renewal process.  
Unsigned: The school was recommended for renewal but did not sign their recent renewal agreement.   
Unexecuted: The school was recommended for renewal and signed the agreement, but there is paperwork to be filed and other steps before the charter is ratified by the SDP Board.  
Expired: The school did not go through the most recent renewal.
Non-renewed/Revoked: SDP has made a recommendation to not renew and/or revoke the school’s charter.  

Chart 2


Though we believe unresolved contracts present elements of risk to credit quality, particularly as schools go into future charter renewal periods, we believe that immediate credit concerns are mitigated by commonwealth statute, which allows schools to continue operating pursuant to their last executed charter agreement as long as they remain in compliance with the contract. In a recent conversation with S&P Global Ratings, the SDP's Charter Schools Office stated it defers to the precedent set by case law, and in our opinion, this is a favorable development from several years ago, when the SDP publicly stated it would not renew charters that were unsigned. Another mitigating factor is that through the charter law, schools may receive funding directly from the commonwealth should there be an interruption to per-pupil funding from the student's resident district. This applies broadly to any form of delayed payment, and schools in our rated universe have used this mechanism successfully in the past.

Ultimately, schools that have renewal conditions related to meaningful academic, financial, or governance underperformance continue to face the most immediate risk to their charter operations. While none of our rated schools have been recommended for nonrenewal at this time, upon non-renewal or revocation of a charter, a school may appeal to the PDE's charter school appeal board to seek reinstatement. However, if the appeal is successful, the charter school is likely to continue being authorized by its home district, since the state currently only authorizes cyber charter schools. Additionally, there are only very rare examples of a charter school being authorized by an entity external to the sending district, as in the instance of a school district being under receivership.

Table 2

Charter Status For SDP Authorized Schools
Name of School Rating Outlook Fall 2022 enrollment Enrollment cap Facility capacity Last executed charter agreement Last charter renewal year Recommended for renewal Charter signed by school Executed charter agreement Comments
Discovery Charter School BB+ Stable 630 620 1,150 2018 2018 Yes Yes Yes Executed charter agreement. Charter was renewed for a term of five years with no conditions
First Philadelphia Prep Charter School BB+ Stable 1,852 1,880 1,880 2012 2022 Yes No No Recommended for a five-year renewal with conditions. The school noted its board has approved the agreement and is in conversation with the CSO and its legal team to sign and execute the agreement.
Global Leadership Academy Charter School BB- Stable 648 675 775 2014 2019 Yes Yes No Signed a five-year charter renewal agreement that is still in pre-execution phase. The authorizer notes that the renewal is very close to being fully executed.
Green Woods Charter School BB+ Stable 694 675 715 2022 2022 Yes Yes Yes Executed charter agreement. Charter was renewed for a term of five years with no conditions.
KIPP Philadelphia BB+ Stable 2,929 2,740 3,180 2013 2018 Yes Yes No* KIPP Philadelphia has five charter agreements across its network of schools. Three have been fully executed, with the two outstanding expected move to the execution phase by the end of calendar year 2022.
MaST Comnty Charter School BBB- Stable 4400* 4,600 4,100 2018 2018 Yes Yes Yes Executed charter agreement. Charter was renewed for a term of five years with no conditions.
Philadelphia Electrical and Technology Charter High School BB Stable 620* 600 600 2017 2022 Yes No No Recommended for a five-year renewal with conditions. The school and the CSO are working through terms of renewal. The charter remains unsigned and unexecuted at this time.
Philadelphia Performing Arts Charter School BB+ Stable 2,748 2,525 3,075 2014 2019 Yes No No Recommended for a five-year renewal with conditions. The school and the CSO are working through terms of renewal. The charter remains unsigned and unexecuted at this time.
Tacony Academy Charter School BB+ Stable 1,092 1,075 1,107 2012 2022 Yes No No Recommended for a five-year renewal with conditions. Charter agreement is unsigned, though the school's management and the CSO report that they are collaborating to reach a resolution on the renewal terms.
West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School BB- Negative 650* 400 700 2006 2011 No No No Please see comments in the report for more details.
*Expected based on available information.

The ratings and outlooks of our Philadelphia charter schools are unchanged at this time. With the exception of West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School (WPACES), all of our rated schools authorized by the SDP were recommended for renewal in their most recent renewal period. Table 2 reflects the charter status at each school, based on our discussion with the authorizer and reviews of the individual schools. Of the 10 rated schools, five are currently operating with unsigned charters and seven are ultimately unexecuted, as Global Leadership Academy and KIPP Philadelphia have contracts that are signed but awaiting execution by the SDP board. The schools and the CSO continue to negotiate and partner to reach a resolution. While each school's renewal contract differs to some extent, some common areas of focus include language around enrollment caps, as well as requirements for charter schools to obtain separate legal representation from their management organizations (where applicable).

West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School (WPACES)

WPACES is unlike other schools with unsigned charters, due to the length of the unsigned charter term (since 2011). We believe WPACES faces operational and financial risk as a result of potential resolution scenarios. For more details, please refer to the most recent summary report.

Other rated Pennsylvania charter schools

Though varied, charter schools outside Philadelphia also face authorizing environment pressures. In addition to the schools authorized by the SDP, we currently rate nine charter schools that are authorized by several other districts within the state (see Table 3). In contrast with Philadelphia, only one school is currently operating with an unsettled charter agreement. Additionally, none of the schools have enrollment caps. However, the relationship between schools and the districts are varied in terms of collegiality and transparency, which has created a more adversarial environment for some schools. While we remain focused on Philadelphia, we believe the relationship structure, with the traditional school district competing directly with the charter schools it authorizes for students and funding, will strain the delicate balance of these relationships regardless of geographic location.

Table 3

Charter Status For Other Pennsylvania Schools
Name of School Authorizer Rating Outlook Fall 2021 enrollment Facility capacity Last executed charter agreement Last charter renewal year Recommended for renewal Charter signed by school Executed charter agreement
Avon Grove Charter School Avon Grove School District BBB- Stable 1,915 2,000 2022 2022 Yes Yes Yes
Chester Charter Scholars Academy Chester Upland School District BB+ Stable 697 750 2019 2019 Yes Yes Yes
Collegium Charter School West Chester Area School District BB Stable 2,873 4,540 2022 2022 Yes Yes Yes
Penn Hills Charter School of Entrepreneurship Pittsburgh School District BB Stable 420 432 2021 2021 Yes Yes Yes
Propel Schools- Braddock Hills - SACP* Woodland Hills School District BB+ Negative 861 1,030 2010 2010 Ongoing No No
Renaissance Academy Charter School Phoenixville Area School District BBB- Stable 1,098 1,200 2020 2020 Yes Yes Yes
School Lane Charter School Bensalem School District BBB- Stable 1,354 1,450 2018 2018 Yes Yes Yes
Seven Generations Charter School East Penn School District BB Stable 343 1,100 2022 2022 Yes Yes Yes
Urban Academy of Greater Pittsburgh Charter School Pittsburgh School District BB+ Stable 340 360 2021 2021 Yes Yes Yes
Note: None of the charter schools have an enrollment cap currently.
Propel Schools--Braddock Hills

Propel is unique in that it has been operating with an expired charter agreement since 2015, despite having completed all of the requirements sufficient for renewal. While the contract is expected to be renewed during the 2022-2023 school year by its authorizer, Woodland Hills School District, the rating remains on negative outlook at this time. For more details, please refer to the most recent full report.

What We're Watching

Chart 3


The chart above highlights what we believe will be the main drivers for credit quality this year and beyond. With the election of a new governor in 2022, there may be shifts in the charter school landscape over the next few years. During his campaign, the governor-elect, Attorney General Joshua Shapiro, favored continued funding increases across education, enhancing funding equity across districts, and expanding school choice options across the commonwealth. These shifts would indicate, at minimum, the maintenance of the status quo for charters, though this will have to play out over a number of years in conversation with other anticipated shifts in the legislature. Locally, the appointment of a new superintendent for SDP in 2022 and an upcoming mayoral election in 2023, which could lead to various shifts in policy and leadership at SDP's board level, are also near-term considerations. Over the longer term, we expect to monitor the statutory environment in Pennsylvania around charter school growth, enrollment caps, authorization, and funding, as broader population and demographic shifts continue, and competition increases in the K-12 market.

Related Research

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analysts:Mel Brown, New York + 3122337204;
Jesse J Brady, New York + 1 (212) 4387944;
Secondary Contacts:Avani K Parikh, New York + 1 (212) 438 1133;
Jessica L Wood, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7004;
Ryan Miller, Dallas +1 2148711408;

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at

Register with S&P Global Ratings

Register now to access exclusive content, events, tools, and more.

Go Back