s&p global ratings: charter schools outlook 2020

S&P Global Ratings:

Charter Schools Outlook 2020

Copyright © 2020 by S&P Global.

All rights reserved.

Jessica Wood, Sector Leader

Peter Murphy, Analytical Manager

Avani Parikh, Lead Analyst

Beatriz Peguero, Lead Analyst

Shivani Singh, Lead Analyst

January 8, 2020

No content below the line

Agenda

2

• 2019 Rating Action and Distribution

Summary

• 2020 Outlook

• Risks and Opportunities

• Q&A


Footer : Never change the footer text on individual slides. Change, turn on or off footer Data color order: Complimentary colors:

2019 Rating Action and Distribution

Summary


Charter Schools Ratings Distribution

4

As of Dec. 31, 2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A- BBB+ BBB BBB- BB+ BB BB- B+ B B- D

C

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Data as of December 31, 2019


Ratings Distribution by State

5

As of Dec. 31, 2019

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CA TX UT CO MI MN AZ PA FL NV NJ NY DE ID

Ratings Distribution by States with > 5 Ratings

B+ andBelow

BB

BBB

A


Charter Schools Outlook Distribution

6

As of Dec. 31, 2019

• 82% Stable

• 35 credits on negative

outlook

• 13 credits on positive

outlook

• 2 credits on CreditWatch

Negative12%

Positive5%

Stable82%

Creditwatch1%



2019 New Public Ratings

7

School State Date Rating Outlook

Albany Leadership Charter High School For Girls NY 7/12/2019 BB Stable

Arizona Autism Charter School AZ 9/4/2019 BB Stable

Arizona School for the Arts AZ 6/26/2019 BB+ Stable

Blackstone Valley Preparatory RI 6/26/2019 BB+ Stable

Caliber Schools CA 12/11/2019 BB+ Stable

District of Columbia International School DC 6/7/2019 BBB Stable

Doral Academy of Nevada (Fire Mesa and Red Rock Campus Projects) NV 3/18/2019 BB+ Stable

First State Montessori Academy Charter School DE 8/12/2019 BBB- Stable

Itineris Early College High School UT 10/21/2019 BB Stable

James Irwin Charter Schools CO 6/14/2019 BBB Stable

KIPP Bay Area Schools CA 6/24/2019 BBB Stable

KIPP Nashville TN 6/26/2019 BBB- Stable

KIPP SoCal Public Schools CA 5/15/2019 BBB Stable

Odyssey Preparatory Academy AZ 8/27/2019 BB- Stable

Somerset Academy of Las Vegas - Lone Mountain Campus NV 3/19/2019 BB Stable

Trillium Academy MI 2/20/2019 BB Stable

Village Tech Schools TX 6/26/2019 BB Stable


History of Rating Changes

8

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

History of Charter School Rating Changes (2012 - 2019)

Upgrade

Downgrade

C

Source: S&P Global Ratings. Data as of December 31, 2019.


2019 Rating Actions

9

Multiple Notch Rating Actions, 2019

School State Date To From Description

Prairie Seeds Academy MN 2/25/2019 BB- BB+Operational deficits which are expected to be ongoing

ASU PreparatoryAcademy AZ 4/17/2019 BB BBB-

On May 24, 2019, following its lowering to 'BB', the rating was withdrawn

STRIDE Academy MN 4/1/2019 D CC

On April 4, 2019, following its lowering to 'D', the rating waswithdrawn

ASPIRA of Florida,Inc FL 7/31/2019 D B

Failure to pay debt service. On September 16th, 2019, the rating was withdrawn

Plymouth Educational Center Charter School MI 7/26/2019 CC B-

Forbearance discussions and expected non-payment of bond principal

Plymouth Educational Center Charter School MI 11/1/2019 D CC

Missed 11/1 principal payment under forbearance agreement

Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen CO 7/19/2019 B+ B- Growth in enrollment and finances

Saginaw Preparatory Academy MI 10/21/2019 B BB

Heightened uncertainty surrounding SPA’s charter contract and potential for non-renewal

Affirmation82%

Downgrade8%

New7%

Upgrade3%




U.S. Charter Schools Outlook 2020:

Stable


Major Criteria Factors

• Economic Fundamentals

• Size/growth enrollment

• Wait list/retention rate

• History of Statutory Framework

• Charter Standing

• Academic Quality

• Management/Governance

• Lease adjusted MADS coverage

• Excess Margin

• Total Revenue

• Unrestricted days cash on hand

• Unrestricted reserves/debt

• Lease-adjusted MADS burden

• Debt-to-capitalization

• Financial policies

ENTERPRISE PROFILE FINANCIAL PROFILE

On 12/20/19, S&P published a Guidance Document related to our Charter

School Criteria, focused on our calculation of lease-adjusted MADS coverage,

generally the heaviest weighted component of our financial profile assessment.


Other Considerations/Adjustments

• Large networks

• Academic distinction

• Significant financial flexibility

• Very low debt/student

• Limited academic offerings or

potential student pool

• Volatile enrollment

• Relocation/construction risk

• Misses academic performance

requirements

• Limited financial flexibility

• Below 1.0x MADS coverage

• Significant unfunded

pension/OPEB

• Contingent liabilities

12

POSITIVE NEGATIVE


13

What We Are Watching For In 2020


Changing Political Environment Charter School Briefs

• In 2019, S&P Global Ratings' charter school team introduced a series of Charter School

Briefs--a snapshot of the operating environment for charter schools on a state-by-state

basis.

• These reports include a rating and median overview, descriptions of the statutory and

authorizer framework, our credit perspectives on state fundamentals, and a forward-

looking analysis of trends and risks in our "What We're Watching" view.

• Changes in the political landscape of these states over the past year have meant that

our view of statutory frameworks continues to evolve, as new legislation is introduced or

enacted, and as education competes with other priorities in state budgets.

• In 2020, the Charter School Briefs will continue to provide a valuable snapshot of

charter school trends by state.

14

• Arizona

• California

• Colorado

• Florida

• Illinois

• Michigan

• Nevada

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• Utah


Changing Political Environment Example: California

AB 1505 – Places new restrictions on charter schools. The bill includes revisions to all key aspects of the

state’s 25-year old charter school law: the approval and renewal of charter schools; the appeals process for

charter school petition denials; and credentialing requirements for charter school teachers. Will give public

school districts more authority to reject petitions for new charter campuses, phase in stricter credentialing

requirements for charter school teachers, and place a two-year moratorium on new virtual (cyber) charter

schools.

15

What We’re Watching:

• AB1505, anti-charter political sentiment

• Labor relations

• Funding increases

• Population decline

• Pension funding levels


In Michigan, the governor had originally vetoed an increase of roughly $240 per student for charter schools

as part of budget deliberations, but did not veto a similar increase for traditional public schools. Ultimately,

while the veto was reversed as part of a long-awaited FY2020 budget compromise, this highlights one

example of how charter school funding is differentiated from and often lags traditional public school funding.

.

16


• Funding cuts

• Slow population growth

• Potential funding increases

• Equalization

• Labor relations

Changing Political Environment Example: Michigan


In 2019, approved decommission of the Illinois State Charter School Commission. In Chicago alone, charter

enrollment grew by 5% over the last five years, while enrollment in the Chicago Public Schools dropped by

nearly 10% over the same period.

17


• Increased regulations, decommissioning of the Illinois State Charter School Commission

• Labor relations: unprecedented increase in charter school strikes began in 2018

• Rising pension costs and low funding levels

• Chicago out-migration

• Volatile state funding dynamics

Changing Political Environment Example: Illinois


18

Competition and Demographics Charter School Student Enrollment


19

Competition and Demographics Minor Enrollment Projections


Disruption Caused by Event Risks Unionization/Strikes

20

Date EventDuration and # Students Impacted

Reason for Strike Charter School(s) Rating

Dec 4 – 7, 2018Chicago strike; first charter school strike

4 days and 7,500 students

Pay, class sizes, and other issues

Acero Charter School Network

BB+/Stable

Jan 14 – 22, 2019

First teachers' strike in LA since 1989 and first time a charter school joined a strike in California

6 days and 500,000 students, including 1,200 charter school students.

Pay, class sizes, cap on charter schools, hiring full-time nurses and librarians, reducing standardized tests

More than 30,000 teachers from the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) public teachers' union, including teachers from the Accelerated Schools charter network

Unrated

Feb 5 – 18, 2019Second Chicago charter school strike

Two weeks and 2,000 students

Pay, class sizes, and other issues

Chicago International Charter School Network (4 schools: ChicagoQuest, Northtown Academy, Ralph Ellison and Wrightwood)

BBB/Stable

May 1st, 2019

Third Chicago charter school strike; first multiple-employer charter strike in Chicago

1 day and 1,600 students

Pay, benefits, and classroom resources

Instituto Health Sciences Career Academy; The InstitutoJustice Leadership Academy; Latino Youth High School

Unrated

October 17 – 31, 2019

Chicago citywide strike spreads to charter schools, fourth Chicago charter teachers strike

11 days and 300,000 students, including 400+ charter school students

Pay, class size, classroom resource, charter school cap, and other issues

Around 25,000 teachers from the Chicago Teachers Union, in addition to Passages Charter School

Unrated


Disruption Caused by Event Risks ESG Look Back

21

Environmental Climate-related risks

Impact of environmental regulation

Energy utilization practices

Land & water use

SocialValue proposition of education

Demographic changes

Affordability

Workforce & diversity

Community development

GovernanceStructure & oversight

State support framework

Headline risk

Transparency & reporting

Cybersecurity


22

Growing Pension and OPEB Costs

StateBest 2018

Funded Ratio

Wisconsin 102.93%

South Dakota

100.02%

New York 98.95%

Washington 93.75%

Idaho 91.64%

StateWorst 2018

Funded Ratio

New Jersey 38.41%

Illinois 38.98%

Colorado 43.76%

Kentucky 44.83%

Connecticut 46.65%

Source: S&P Global Ratings - U.S. State Pension Reforms Partly Mitigate The Effects Of The Next Recession, September 26, 2019


Economy at Peak of Cycle

23

S&P Global Economic Overview

2018 2019f 2020f 2021f

Key Indicator

Real GDP (year % ch.) 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.8

Real GDP (Q4/Q4 % ch.) 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.7

Real consumer spending (year % ch.) 3 2.5 2.4 2.1

Real equipment investment (year % ch.) 6.8 1.5 0.8 2.5

Real nonresidential structures investment (year % ch.) 4.1 -4.9 -2 2.6

Real residential investment (year % ch.) -1.5 -1.8 1.6 2.7

Core CPI (year % ch.) 2.1 2.2 2 2

Unemployment rate (%) 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.6

Housing starts (annual total in mil.) 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index (Dec. to Dec. % ch.) 5.8 3.2 1.8 2

Light vehicle sales (annual total in mil.) 17.3 17 16.4 16.3

Federal Reserve's fed funds policy target rate range (Year-end %) 2.25-2.50 1.50-1.75 1.50-1.75 1.50-1.75

What does this mean for Per-Pupil Funding?

• Expected to be stable to increasing in FY2020

• Beyond our outlook period, slowdown impacts could vary greatly by

state.


Per-Pupil Funding Levels Vary State by State

24

Selected States with many charter school ratings

• Arizona: Per-pupil funding has risen over the past few years; it increased by 4.4% in fiscal 2019 and is increasing by a similar amount in fiscal 2020, which we view favorably

• Florida: In recent years, per-pupil funding has increased between 1% and 2% annually and is projected to continue growing at similar rates in the near-term due to a charter supportive state funding environment. However, funding remains below pre-Great Recession levels.

• Utah: In recent years, per pupil funding has increased 2%-4% annually and is projected to continue to increase in the near term.

• Texas: While overall state funding has experienced steady increases in recent years, to match population growth throughout the state, base funding per student remained flat this decade at about $5,100.

• Colorado: After several years of 2%-3% growth, per-pupil revenue rose close to 6% in fiscal 2019.

• Pennsylvania: Per-pupil funding fell unexpectedly in fiscal 2017, creating operational pressure for some schools. Since then, funding for Pennsylvania charter schools has increased modestly in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and volatility seems to be in the past, with fiscal 2020 funding up 7-8%.

• Michigan: In recent years, per pupil charter school funding has increased roughly between 1% and 2% annually, and is projected to continue to increase in the near-term. For FY20, there is an increase of roughly $240 per student for charter schools.


In 2019, Florida required schools districts to share tax revenues generated from school district-voted

discretionary millage levies with charter schools based on each charter school’s proportionate share of the

district’s total unweighted FTE enrollment. Florida also provided $158.2 million to its charter school capital

outlay fund.

25


• Favorable population growth anddemographics.

• Potential for increased funding.

• Equalization

• Teacher recruitment and retentionchallenges: Florida ranked among the bottom 5% for teacher salaries

Funding Equality Creates Opportunity Example: Florida


House Bill 3 (HB3) which was passed and became law in June, is an $11.6 billion measure that provides

charter schools more money for employee salaries and programs like full-day pre-K and increases the state

share of retirement payments for all educators. The effects of the bill on charter schools’ financial operations

and overall credit quality are uncertain. Some schools will benefit from the extra funding; however, the added

spending requirements may offset the additional funds received.

26


• Population growth

• Expected funding increases

• Equalization

• Low threat of teacher strikes

• Charter and public school partnerships

• Pension funding levels

Funding Equality Creates Opportunity Example: Texas


Charter School Expansion

27

By year, fall 2005 to fall 2017

Source: Data from National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

*based on estimated figures

1.02

1.161.28

1.44

1.61

1.80

2.03

2.27

2.51

2.69

2.84

3.02

3.17

3.7

4.04.3

4.64.9

5.35.6

6.0

6.56.7

6.97.1

7.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Sch

oo

ls, i

n T

ho

usa

nd

s

Stu

den

ts, i

n M

illio

ns

Students Schools

% market share 2.1% 2.3% 2.6% 2.9% 3.2% 3.6% 4.1% 4.5% 4.9% 5.3% 5.6% 6.0% 6.2%

net sector growth n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 282 348 374 349 372 245 261 129 71

*


Charter School ExpansionS&P Rated Largest Networks

28

Charter Network State # of Students # of Schools

Student Growth Rate (3-

year-avg) Authorizer Growth / Expansion Plans Rating

IDEA Public Schools TX 53,000 91 22.9%Texas Education Agency

Plans to add 20 schools in fiscal 2021 and 30 schools in fiscal 2022

A-/Stable

Harmony Public Schools

TX 34,709 57 3.2%Texas Education Agency

Plans to open 9 new schools over the next few years to grow to 66 schools and approximately 37,800 students by 2022-2023

BBB/Stable

KIPP Texas TX 29,492 55 8.2%Texas Education Agency

Expansion plans over the next few years are contingent upon meeting internal financial targets, likely to add a few schools per year up to current cap of 38,000 students

BBB+/Stable

BASIS Schools Inc.AZ, LA, TX, and DC

19,326* 27 14.7% 4 different authorizers Planning for 7,000 additional students over 5 years BB/Stable

Uplift Education TX 18,426* 40 9.7%Texas Education Agency

Three new schools projected for FY2020 BBB-/Stable

Responsive Education Solutions

TX 17,631* 71 -2.4%Texas Education Agency

Texas expansion strategy is to open between 2-5 new schools each year and is targeting enrollment around 29,700 by FY2021, including 7,700 in TX Virtual

BBB/Stable

Aspire Public Schools CA, TN 17,52940 (13 secure the bonds)

3.4%14 different authorizers

Plans for new schools in Stockton and Los Angeles in the next few years

BBB/Stable

GreatHearts Arizona AZ 13,90121 (19 secure the bonds)

6.1%Arizona State Board for Charter Schools

No specific plans for expansion at this time, but exploring options and continuing to fill in capacity at existing campuses

BBB-/Stable

Alliance For College-Ready Public Schools

CA 13,32725 (15 secure the bonds)

4.6%Los Angeles Unified School District

No expansion plans in the near future BBB/Stable

Noble Networks of Charter Schools

IL 12,309 17 1.0% Chicago Public SchoolsNo plans to expand to more sites, but do have plans to grow enrollment to around 15,000 students

BBB/Stable

*as of fall 2018; all other data as of fall 2019


Access to Capital

29

• Low interest rate environment, strong demand for high yield

muni debt

• Increasing options for Charter Schools

• First ever pooled Charter School loan program

• State credit enhancement programs



Q&A


CHARTER SCHOOL ANALYTICAL TEAM

Head of Analytics and Research Analytical Manager Sector Leader

Robin Prunty

Managing Director

(1) 212-438-2081

[email protected]

Peter Murphy

Managing Director

(1)212.438.2065

[email protected]

Jessica Wood

Senior Director

(1) 312-233-7004

[email protected]

Analytical Team

Laura Kuffler-Macdonald

Senior Director

(1) 212-438-2519

[email protected]

Avani Parikh

Director

(1) 212-438-1133

[email protected]

Beatriz Peguero

Director

(1) 212-438-2164

[email protected]

Shivani Singh

Director

(1) 212-438-3120

[email protected]

Bobbi Gajwani

Director

(1) 312-233-7001

[email protected]

Ying Huang

Director

(1) 212-438-7613

[email protected]

David Holmes

Associate Director

(1) 214-871-1427 [email protected]

Brian Marshall

Associate Director

(1) 214-841-1414

[email protected]

Ann Richardson

Associate Director

(1) 214-765 5878

[email protected]


Analytical Team – Continued

Stephanie Wang

Associate Director

(1) 212-438-3841

[email protected]

Natalie Fakelmann

Associate

(1) 312-256-4353

[email protected]

Robert Tu

Associate

(1) 415-371-5087

[email protected]

James Gallardo

Associate

(1) 303-721-4391

[email protected]

Gauri Gupta

Associate

(1) 312-233-7010

[email protected]

Amber Schafer

Associate

(1) 303-721-4238

[email protected]

Mikayla Roller

Research Assistant

(1) 303-721-4942

[email protected]

Eli Harden

CREDit Analyst

(1) 212-438-1756

[email protected]


Additional Resources

33

Top Ten Credit Stories for 2019

U.S. Charter Schools 2019 Year In Review

Charter Schools Medians Report

Fiscal 2018 U.S. Charter School Sector

Medians: Overall, Enrollment And Financial

Performance Improved

Charter School Briefs:

• Arizona

• California

• Colorado

• Florida

• Illinois

Default Study

2018 Annual U.S. Public Finance Default

Study And Rating Transitions

S&P U.S. Public Finance

https://www.spratings.com/us-public-

finance

Criteria

U.S. Public Finance Charter Schools:

Methodology And Assumptions,

Jan. 3, 2017

Guidance- Lease-adjusted Maximum

Annual Debt Service Coverage

Dec. 20, 2019

Additional relevant criteria

Group Rating Methodology

Nov. 19, 2013

Industry Risk

Nov. 19, 2013

• Michigan

• Nevada

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• Utah

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/SPResearch.aspx?DocumentId=43234909&From=SNP_CRS

https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2246092&SctArtId=472334&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=11018441&sourceRevId=1&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20290606-02:43:20




https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/SPResearch.aspx?ArtObjectId=11204396&ArtRevId=1



https://www.spratings.com/us-public-finance

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/showArticlePage.do?rand=oZx1xzCbty&articleId=1780040

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/showArticlePage.do?rand=rgX1cb0MiU&sid=1625695&sind=A&object_id=8336067&rev_id=23&from=SR


https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/showArticlePage.do?rand=rgX1cb0MiU&sid=1625695&sind=A&object_id=8336067&rev_id=23&from=SR

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/showArticlePage.do?rnd=KfmAB&articleId=1225034&sctArtId=205746&from=CM







Copyright © 2020 by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved.

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.

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 non-public

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, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and

www.globalcreditportal.com (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 www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Australia

Standard & Poor's (Australia) Pty. Ltd. holds Australian financial services license number 337565 under the Corporations Act 2001. Standard & Poor’s credit ratings and related research

are not intended for and must not be distributed to any person in Australia other than a wholesale client (as defined in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act).

STANDARD & POOR’S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC.

34

s&p global ratings: charter schools outlook 2020

Documents