Hosting a Part-Time Homeschool Enrichment Program

A part-time homeschool enrichment program can’t claim state funding on its own. The claim belongs to a Local Education Provider: a CSI-authorized charter school, a district-authorized charter school, a BOCES that operates schools and reports in Student October, or a school district. The LEP enrolls and counts the students, files the collections, and answers to the state for compliance.

So two kinds of organizations end up looking for each other: programs that already run well but need a school willing to hold the claim, and schools that have the authority to host a program but no appetite for building one.

The model described here is the one that has held up in practice. The Operator runs the program in essentially every dimension, and the LEP keeps only what can’t legally be delegated, so hosting doesn’t create new work for the school’s existing staff.

Two roles, used throughout

LEP — Local Education Provider. Defined on CDE Form AUD-111 as a CSI-authorized charter school, a district-authorized charter school, a BOCES that operates schools and reports in Student October, or a school district. The LEP enrolls the students, holds the legal claim to their funding, certifies assurances, and carries external compliance accountability.

Operator. The organization that runs the program day to day — instruction, families, site, and staff — under a contract with the LEP.

They’re joined by a board-to-board agreement, usually a memorandum of understanding that later converts into a binding service contract.

Six elements define the arrangement. Everything in Part III is a consequence of these.

Operational ownership

The Operator runs the day-to-day program: instruction, identification, assessment administration, family-facing operations, plan development (ALPs, READ plans, 504s), and accommodation delivery. The LEP keeps the obligations it cannot delegate: state submissions, authorizer certification, board-level policy adoption, supervision of licensed instructional staff, the legal claim for funding, and external compliance accountability.

Staffing

The Operator uses its existing staff and structures. No new roles are created at the LEP. Where formal outside capacity is required, such as a special education or 504 evaluation, the service is contracted and paid for by the Operator through the service-contract structure.

Financial structure

The LEP receives all state revenue (per-pupil revenue and categoricals), retains an agreed portion, and passes the balance to the Operator as a service-contract fee. From the school’s side this is one additional budget line: paying a third party to operate the program. The Operator keeps separate books, which keeps the arrangement clean for audit. Direct costs driven by the added enrollment — assessments, SIS seats, screenings — are the Operator’s on a per-pupil basis.

Systems & data

The LEP’s student information system is the system of record for state reporting. Two implementation paths, chosen during setup and written into the contract: the Operator enters data directly with appropriate access, or the Operator prepares files the LEP appends to its state submissions. HR reporting follows the same pattern. See section 21.

Board action

The arrangement takes two board votes. The first authorizes submission of the program application, which commits the board to nothing operationally. The second authorizes launch, once a service agreement has actually been reached. Separating them lets a board start the clock without deciding the whole question.

Bridge or permanent

Both work. Some partnerships are permanent: the school hosts the program indefinitely as part of its portfolio. Others are a bridge, giving the Operator a compliant home while it pursues its own charter. Say which one you’re in early, because it changes how the exit and conversion terms get written.

Run the arrangement through these before anyone drafts a single form. A failure at Gate 1 or Gate 3 is fatal on a short timeline no matter how much everyone wants it to work.

A sixth question sits alongside these and gets its own treatment in section 08: whether public and private-pay programming are cleanly separated. Reviewers treat that as the most serious defect of all.

In order. Steps two and three can overlap; nothing after step four can start early.

1. 1

   Scoping conversation

   Both boards understand what an LEP actually holds. Sites, grade levels, enrollment estimate, and fee expectations get named out loud.

2. 2

   Charter authorization

   If the LEP’s charter contract doesn’t already permit a part-time homeschool program, an amendment is drafted and submitted to the authorizer. Board vote required.

3. 3

   Board authorizes the application

   First of the two board actions. Authorizes submission only; commits the school to nothing operationally.

4. 4

   Application packet

   The Operator drafts; the LEP reviews and signs. The packet has to be internally consistent, since a change to one document ripples through the rest, and it has to match what the program’s public website says.

5. 5

   MOU, then service contract

   A board-to-board memorandum establishes the relationship and the roles matrix. It converts to a full service contract before launch: scope, fee structure, performance standards, audit and oversight rights, indemnification, data sharing, and termination.

6. 6

   Board authorizes launch

   Second board action, taken once the agreement is actually on the table. Systems setup and enrollment follow.

Program approval is not partnership approval. Getting a program added to your charter contract permits you to run one; it doesn’t create or bless the agreement with the Operator. Two separate closes, and both have to land before the deadline.

Everything the state requires is authorizer-agnostic. The AUD forms, the instructional-hour minimum, the funding code, the October count, the no-private-subsidy rule, the special populations obligations, the assessment slate: identical regardless of who authorized you.

The authorizer-level layer is not. If you’re a district-authorized charter, a district-run school, a BOCES member school, or anything other than a CSI school, these are the specific places to substitute your own process before relying on this guide.

1. The authorization vehicle. A CSI school adds an enrichment program through a charter contract amendment: the school submits it on the authorizer’s amendment form, staff review it, and the authorizer’s board votes. A district-authorized charter amends its charter contract with the authorizing district’s board instead, on that district’s calendar and posting rules. A district-run school usually needs a board program approval rather than a contract amendment, and there may be no contract to amend at all. Find out which of these you are before you build a timeline, because the vehicle determines how many weeks the approval takes.
2. Board calendars are the real constraint. Whatever the vehicle, count backwards from your submission deadline through your board’s meeting schedule and its materials-lock deadline. Most authorizers require final board materials some fixed period before the meeting.
3. The document and certification system. CSI schools certify homeschool assurances and file program documents in the authorizer’s document repository. Every other authorizer has its own mechanism, or none. If yours has none, you still owe CDE the same certifications through CDE’s own forms, and you still need a defensible internal file. Never assume a document is “submitted” because you uploaded it somewhere.
4. Organization-level submissions on the authorizer’s calendar. CSI runs an annual organizational homeschool submission with its own due date, separate from anything CDE requires. Other authorizers may run nothing comparable. Ask directly what your authorizer requires annually and when it’s due. Missing an authorizer deadline can suspend a program that’s perfectly clean with the state.
5. Policy sources cited in this guide. Where the text references authorizer homeschool guidance, an authorizer student fees policy, or authorizer coding references, substitute your own authorizer’s equivalent, or your board’s adopted policy where none exists. Where no policy exists at either level, that’s a gap your board has to close before enrollment opens, not an absence of a requirement.
6. Geographic boundary. For a charter school, the boundary that governs part-time homeschool funding is the district the school physically sits in. That holds whether the authorizer is a statewide institute or the district itself, but the practical consequence differs: when the district is also the authorizer, the boundary question and the authorization question collapse into one conversation. When the authorizer is statewide, they’re two conversations with two bodies. For a BOCES-authorized school, confirm in writing how the boundary is defined against the member districts before you draft anything.
7. Program approval is not partnership approval. Getting a program added to your charter contract permits you to run one. It does not create, approve, or bless the agreement with the Operator. Two separate closes, under every authorizer.
8. The nutrition eligibility question. CSI acts as the School Food Authority partner for its schools, which raises a specific question about whether part-time homeschool students are covered under that arrangement or need separate direct-certification forms. If your authorizer isn’t CSI, you have your own SFA relationship or none, and the question is differently shaped but still has to be answered before enrollment.
9. Accountability treatment. When part-time homeschool students are correctly coded as homeschool, their assessment results don’t roll into the school’s state accountability rating. The authorizer-level accountability framework is a separate system with its own rules. Confirm your own authorizer’s treatment rather than assuming it matches the state’s.

Rule of thumb for reading the rest of this page: if a requirement cites a statute or a CDE form, it applies to you. If it cites an authorizer process, substitute yours.

Assembled from published review criteria, State Board testimony, and line-by-line application reviews. In rough order of how fatal each is. The first three are model problems; the rest are packet problems.

Public and private-pay blending

StructuralThe most substantive killer. The funding statement says families can’t pay privately for classes while the handbook prices additional sessions. Reviewers treat that overlap as public subsidy of private programming. Usually requires narrowing or restructuring the model, not editing a form.

Complex contractor structures

StructuralChains of operators, subcontractors, and related entities. Reviewers have said plainly that they struggle to evaluate these. Simplify or lose.

Site sprawl

Hard to cureA dozen-plus sites across multiple districts will not clear a short review window. Narrowing to the sites in one district under one LEP is the move that works.

Co-location

Hard to curePrivate or fee-based services co-located with the public program and available to the same students. Document it. If there is none, say so explicitly rather than leaving it unaddressed.

Special populations marked “not applicable”

FixableMarking the contracted-services special-populations assurance not applicable because the program is part-time is a flag. Part-time programs are required to address those responsibilities.

Internal inconsistency

FixableAssurance answers that don’t match the rest of the packet. A location grid that doesn’t separate every site, provider, and service. Missing agreements for outside providers — every one of them, not just the primary. Correctable, but this is what turns a close call into a denial.

Handbook misalignment

FixableEnrollment, accommodations, discipline, nondiscrimination, fees, and dismissal language that isn’t aligned to public-school requirements.

Website contradicting the packet

FixableReviewers read the public site. Locations, schedules, and paid offerings on a public page have to match the location grid and the funding statements.

Out-of-boundary operation generally

ScrutinyExpect heightened scrutiny of any program operating outside the LEP’s geographic boundaries, independent of how clean the paperwork is.

Each program keeps its own internally consistent set. A change to any one document — schedule, sites, enrollment, funding terms — almost always ripples into the others. Update the set together, never one file at a time.

Contracted-services annual assurances AUD-108 · Operator signs, LEP submits

The Operator’s assurances. Address special populations rather than marking them not applicable.

LEP audit assurances AUD-111 · LEP

The in-boundary assurance applies to fully in-boundary programs. The out-of-boundary assurances apply the moment any site sits outside, and they bring the prior-year cap with them. Due with the pupil count questionnaire in mid-September.

Location grid AUD-111a · LEP

Every programming location, including backup sites, inclement-weather sites, and field-study locations, each with the district it sits in. This grid is what proves or disproves the boundary question, and it has to separate every site, every provider, and every service.

Out-of-boundary application AUD-112 · LEP

Required only when the program operates outside the LEP’s geographic boundaries. One separate application per out-of-boundary district. Not needed at all for a fully in-boundary program.

MOU or service agreement Both boards

Board-to-board, and also an attachment to the out-of-boundary application. See section 23, and the MOU drafts page for language.

A running log of open items Joint

Nobody requires it, and it’s the most useful document in the folder. Every unresolved question, who owns it, and what closes it.

No student personally identifiable information belongs anywhere in an application packet.

Dates shift year to year. The shape doesn’t.

Spring, prior year

Board authorization to submit. Authorizer amendment or program application filed. This is the long pole; start earlier than feels necessary.

Early summer

Provisional authorization window for out-of-boundary programs, where one exists. Missing it pushes you onto the local-board path.

Late summer

Authorizer-level organizational submissions, where your authorizer runs one. Program launch board vote. Service contract executed.

Mid-September

Pupil count questionnaire and LEP audit assurances due. Local-board-path packets to CDE.

October 1

Pupil count. The date the entire exercise exists to serve.

Following spring

Early literacy data collection, end-of-year collection, and the true-up against certified counts.

Where outside capacity is required, the cost passes to the Operator. These rows follow CSI homeschool guidance. A district-authorized LEP works from parallel but not identical requirements, so confirm against your own authorizer’s guidance before relying on any single row.

The LEP’s board approves the formalized HSE program before implementation.

Non-delegableTwo board actions: authorize application submission, then authorize launch once a service agreement is reached.

Program aligns with the LEP’s mission, instructional philosophy, and charter contract.

Operator-ledThe Operator writes the application narrative and makes the alignment case. The LEP reviews for genuine fit with its charter contract before sign-off.

Program expansion application or charter contract amendment submitted to and approved by the authorizer.

Operator-ledwith LEP sign-off. CSI guidance says a formalized, ongoing part-time program “may require advance CSI approval” through the Program and Contract Modification process, while opening an activity to homeschool students on a limited or infrequent basis may not. Assume approval is required for anything a school markets as a program. The Operator drafts; the school submits it, not the Operator and not a consultant.

Operating parameters set in advance: courses, calendar, bell schedule, enrollment timelines, handbook, waitlist.

Operator-ledThe Operator does the compliance work and produces the documents. Either the Operator gets document-portal access to upload directly, or the LEP uploads what the Operator provides.

Service contract between the LEP and the Operator.

Non-delegableDrafted by the LEP with legal review. Defines scope, fee structure, performance standards, audit and oversight rights, indemnification, data sharing, and termination. The Operator may supply a first draft for LEP review if that’s faster.

Notify families of: the requirement to file a current notice of intent to homeschool with a Colorado school district; that only one school or district may claim part-time funding for the student; that special education services will not be provided; and of the school’s obligations for identification, assessment, and supports.

Operator-ledusing language the LEP and authorizer have approved. Delivered directly to families at intake.

Written family acknowledgments captured at enrollment.

Operator-ledSigned acknowledgment forms collected at intake and retained in the Operator’s student file.

Collect a current copy of the family’s notice of intent to homeschool before enrollment, and be able to produce it at audit. §§ 22-33-104.3(3)(c), 22-54-103(10)(k)

Operator-ledCopy collected at intake and filed in the student record. AUD-111 assurance 1 requires the LEP to have the current notice available at the time of audit, so “current” and “before enrollment” both matter.

Verify no other school or district is claiming part-time funding for the student.

Operator-ledIntake attestation. A homeschool student may receive part-time services from more than one district, but only one may submit the student for funding, and no student may be counted at more than 1.0 FTE. The Operator handles communication and error resolution on any duplicate flags raised during October Count.

Confirm the student is not satisfying compulsory attendance through an independent or parochial school. §§ 22-33-104.3(3)(b), 22-54-103(10)(j)

Operator-ledAdded to the enrollment attestation. Two tests sit behind this: the enrollment prohibition turns on satisfying compulsory attendance that way, and the funding exclusion turns on being enrolled in such a school. AUD-111 assurance 2 states it as a flat bar on reporting those students for funding.

Verify the family understands the no-special-education-services rule; document where an IEP is on file.

Operator-ledStandard acknowledgment captured for every family. A student with an existing IEP gets a documented conversation, but the position doesn’t change: no IEP implementation during HSE participation. Because no services are delivered, the student generates no special education Participation File record and so does not surface in December Count.

Claim funding only for students scheduled for at least 90 and fewer than 360 hours of instructional time in the semester containing the count date. 1 CCR 301-39

Operator-ledrecords; LEP submits. The threshold is a scheduled figure as of the count date, not a delivered-hours total, and it is a range with a ceiling: at 360 hours or more the student is no longer part-time. Parent-led and parent-directed instruction does not count toward it, and religious instruction should be excluded from claimed hours rather than left in the totals. The Operator maintains the calendar, bell schedule, attendance logs, and instructional records that demonstrate it; the LEP’s October Count submission uses them as source documentation.

Only one school or district may claim funding per HSE student, and a homeschool student is capped at part-time funding (0.5 FTE) statewide.

Non-delegablefor submission; Operator-led for verification at intake. HSE students are flagged Home Based Education = 1 and report under the part-time home-based education funding code (85).

No tuition charged to students submitted for state funding.

JointReflected in the board-adopted fee policy. The rule operates as a funding disqualifier rather than a flat ban: instructional time provided in a setting that requires participation in a tuition-based non-public program cannot be submitted, and a tuition-paying student codes as not eligible (code 87).

Extracurricular and interscholastic activity fees capped at 150% of the fee charged an enrolled student. § 22-32-116.5(6)

JointReview both entities’ fee schedules so the cap holds across them. The statute governs activity fees charged to nonenrolled students, so confirm with your authorizer how it applies to fees inside a program where the student is enrolled part-time.

No funding, reimbursement, or subsidy of any private activity or private purchase for a student or family. § 22-33-104.3(3)(a)

StructuralThe service-contract fee flows from LEP to Operator for program operation. No per-family stipends, vendor accounts, curriculum reimbursements, or family-facing purchasing mechanisms are permitted. AUD-111 extends this to activities, supplies, items, or materials of personal value that are not generally available to full-time students, and CDE separately treats co-location with fee- or tuition-based programming available to the same students as a problem. An Operator with existing arrangements of this kind has to unwind them before the partnership can stand.

Categorical funding pathways apply for multilingual learners, free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, and gifted students. Special education categorical funding generally does not.

Operator-ledidentification. The Operator runs identification, holds the plans, and keeps the LEP’s SIS current with demographics. The LEP claims categorical funding through its standard collections.

Funds flow to the LEP and then to the Operator. Funds are never passed to families.

Non-delegablefor receipt. See the structure above.

Early literacy (READ Act) funding is paid in arrears.

StrategicEligible students served in one year generate funding to the LEP in a later fiscal year, potentially after the Operator has moved to its own authorization. Put it on the financial model and address it in the contract rather than discovering it later.

All HSE students entered in the LEP’s SIS with the home-based education flag set.

Non-delegableas the system of record. Where the data originates depends on the path chosen in section 21.

Daily attendance taken and maintained per state requirements.

Operator-ledThe Operator captures attendance through its existing tools and pushes records to the LEP on a cadence specified in the contract, or works directly in the LEP’s SIS and covers the per-pupil cost of the additional seats.

October Count submission with the correct funding status code.

Non-delegableThe LEP submits using the Operator’s underlying records. The Operator works through any errors specific to its students during the count window.

End-of-year and other applicable collections include HSE students.

Non-delegableSame pattern as October Count: LEP submits, Operator supplies and reconciles source data.

Entry and exit coding per the authorizer’s quick reference.

JointThe LEP provides coding guidance to the Operator’s enrollment staff, with quality assurance built into monthly reconciliation.

Verification processes prevent dual-school funding claims.

JointOperator attestation upstream; the Operator resolves any flagged duplicates for its own students.

Nationally standardized achievement test in grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. § 22-33-104.5(3)(f)

Operator-ledThe Operator administers the chosen instrument on site. Per-pupil cost passes to the Operator; at typical HSE volumes this is small. The underlying statute lets a family satisfy the evaluation requirement either by the standardized test or by evaluation from a qualified person, and a composite at or below the 13th percentile triggers a re-test.

ACCESS for ELLs administered annually to identified multilingual learners, with no opt-out.

Operator-ledRequires a WIDA-certified administrator, either on the Operator’s staff or contracted. Testing window coordinated with the LEP’s ACCESS calendar. Direct per-pupil cost passes to the Operator.

WIDA Screener administered to students whose home language survey indicates a language other than English.

Operator-ledSurvey administered at intake; screener administered within the statutory window. Requires certified administration.

READ Act assessments in K–3; individualized READ plans developed and implemented; results reported in the spring collection.

Operator-ledThe Operator administers an approved assessment within its existing K–3 schedule, and its classroom teachers develop the plans. Data flows to the LEP for the spring collection. READ Act funding runs one budget year in arrears, so students served during the partnership year generate funding to the LEP the following year.

Kindergarten School Readiness Assessment administered within the first 60 days; family opt-out available.

Operator-ledState-board-approved instrument administered within the window. Opt-out process documented in the family packet; forms retained by the Operator.

Parent requests to administer CMAS/CoAlt honored; coded properly as homeschool.

JointThe Operator handles logistics and space; the LEP confirms the homeschool coding.

Multilingual learner program plan submitted to the authorizer.

Operator-leddrafting; LEP submits. The Operator drafts the program-specific content; the LEP reviews and files it.

Students with disabilities — IDEA and FAPE

A student with a disability cannot be denied admission to any HSE program, course, or activity.

JointNon-discrimination policy adopted by the LEP; applied at enrollment by the Operator. Documented in both the family packet and the staff handbook.

Child Find: the LEP must identify and evaluate HSE students for suspected disabilities.

Operator-ledobservation; contracted formal evaluation paid by the Operator. Classroom teachers observe and refer; formal evaluation is conducted by a contracted evaluator at the Operator’s cost. The LEP retains the obligation itself, and enrolling the student part-time is what moves it: Child Find sits with the administrative unit where the child attends school, and with the AU of residence only where the child is not enrolled anywhere. If a student is found eligible, the family is told what would attach on full enrollment, but no IEP is developed or implemented while the student stays in homeschool, and Colorado has no service plan analogue for homeschool students. 1 CCR 301-8, 4.02(1)(a)(ii)

Special education services are not provided to HSE students. IEPs are not implemented during HSE participation.

Operator-ledcommunication. Policy documented in the homeschool policies attachment and the family packet, and communicated at intake. If a family wants IEP services delivered, the only path is full enrollment in a non-HSE program.

At enrollment, document the family’s understanding that an existing IEP will not be implemented during HSE.

Operator-ledStandard acknowledgment in the enrollment packet, signed by the family. No exceptions.

Special education categorical funding does not flow from HSE students.

Rarely appliesDecember Count is built from special education Participation File records keyed to when services started and last occurred, so a student receiving no services has no record to count. The one route by which an unserved student normally enters the count, the parentally-placed private school code, is unavailable here: Colorado statute says a nonpublic home-based educational program does not qualify as a private school. CSI puts it as reportable “if the student is receiving special education services, although it would be uncommon in the instance of homeschool students participating in a part-time program at a school.” So check any case where services are actually being delivered, including a student the IEP team has determined must be educated at home for health reasons, who would be counted. § 22-33-104.5(2)(a)

Students with disabilities — Section 504

Existing 504 plans honored; accommodations provided for access.

Operator-ledThe Operator delivers accommodations and provides documentation to the LEP. Existing plans flow to the Operator at intake.

Where no 504 exists and accommodations are needed, evaluate and, if eligible, develop and implement a plan.

Operator-ledand Operator-funded. Evaluation, plan development, and implementation run through the Operator; where LEP resources are used, the cost passes to the Operator. Documentation provided to the LEP for the file.

Accommodation feasibility considered by course type when designing the program menu.

Operator-ledDocumented as part of program design, not sorted out after enrollment.

504 documentation maintained per standard procedures.

Operator-ledPlans held in the Operator’s student files, with copies provided to the LEP.

Multilingual learners

Home language survey administered at enrollment for every HSE student.

Operator-ledSurvey sits in the standard intake packet; data captured in the Operator’s enrollment system and pushed to the LEP’s SIS.

WIDA Screener administered where the survey indicates a language other than English.

Operator-ledRequires a certified administrator on staff or under contract.

Identified students provided appropriate supports and resources for any course taken.

Operator-ledSupports integrated into existing classroom practice; methodology documented in the program plan addendum.

ACCESS for ELLs administered annually, with no opt-out.

Operator-ledTesting window coordinated with the LEP’s calendar.

Multilingual learner program plan addendum submitted to the authorizer.

Operator-leddrafting; LEP submits.

Families may decline services; identification, ACCESS, and monitoring obligations remain.

Operator-ledService-decline forms captured at intake. Required assessments and monitoring continue regardless.

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Eligibility determined for every HSE student, through the school food authority or a direct family eligibility process.

Operator-ledcollection. Confirm with the authorizer before the enrollment window opens whether HSE students fall inside the LEP’s existing school food authority arrangement or need separate direct-certification forms. The answer varies by school, and it drives which forms go in the intake packet.

Eligibility status reported in all applicable state collections.

Non-delegableThe LEP reports using the Operator’s collected eligibility data. Eligibility drives at-risk categorical funding.

Gifted students

Universal screening offered to all HSE students at the tested grade level; parent opt-out permitted.

Operator-ledThe Operator administers the screening instrument on site and collects opt-out forms at intake. Where the authorizer offers a universal screening grant, both the LEP’s own students and HSE students can typically be included.

ECEA portability and Military Compact rules applied to previously identified students.

Operator-ledThe Operator flags portability cases at intake and confirms ALP carryover.

Advanced learning plans developed in collaboration with the parent or guardian.

Operator-ledClassroom teachers develop plans in conference with families.

Programming, accommodations, and interventions provided in areas of identification at school; affective support provided regardless of area.

Operator-ledProgramming delivered through existing classroom practice; affective support integrated into standard advisory or social-emotional programming.

ALP progress reported to families at least twice per year.

Operator-ledIntegrated into the Operator’s existing conference cadence; documentation provided to the LEP for the file.

Families may decline gifted services; the decline is documented on the ALP.

Operator-ledDecline noted on the plan in lieu of goals and retained in the student file.

Nursing services provided as required by law.

Operator-ledIf capacity exists at the LEP, the Operator covers the additional hours HSE students require; otherwise the service is contracted. The service contract specifies the coverage model.

Medication administration available under standard school protocols.

Operator-ledTrained Operator staff administer medication under the LEP’s medication policy. Records maintained at the program site.

Vision and hearing screenings administered.

Operator-ledConducted at the program site on a scheduled date, or folded into the LEP’s own screening schedule where that’s allowable, with per-pupil costs covered by the Operator. Filed in the student record.

Immunization requirements.

LEP policyHomeschool students are exempt from the school entry requirement by default, but the exemption lifts at the LEP’s election: an institute charter school may require compliance where a homeschool student attends it for a portion of the school day, as may a district or a private school. The hook is the student attending the school as an entity, not being present on its main campus, so an off-campus site and no contact with full-time students do not change the analysis. Once the LEP requests them, the parent must produce records or a signed exemption statement, and enforcement provisions attach. Make this a deliberate board policy decision rather than inheriting the answer from the handbook by accident; the Operator then collects whatever the policy requires at intake. § 25-4-902(2)(c); 6 CCR 1009-2 § III.D

Student health records maintained per standard practice.

Operator-ledRecords held at the program site for daily access.

HSE students permitted equal-basis participation in activities not available through homeschool.

Non-delegablepolicy adoption by the LEP. The Operator communicates available activities to families. Practical impact varies with the grade levels served.

No prohibitive policies or organizational rules adopted.

Non-delegableThe LEP reviews its existing policies and athletic-association affiliations for language that would exclude HSE students.

Activity fees capped at 150% of the fee charged an enrolled student, and used only for the activity charged. § 22-32-116.5(6)

JointThe LEP’s fee policy governs; the Operator implements any activity-specific fees within the cap.

Authorizer student fees policy followed.

Non-delegableCompliance check sits with the LEP.

The LEP’s student information system is the system of record for state reporting. There are two workable implementation paths, and the service contract has to name one:

• Direct input. The Operator gets appropriate SIS access and enters student data directly.
• File upload. The Operator prepares files in a format the LEP can upload.

Neither is wrong. Deciding late is. Resolve it during system setup, before enrollment.

Two related items. The Operator’s instructional staff generally need to appear in the LEP’s human resources reporting, which usually means the Operator prepares a file that merges into it. And both parties handle student records consistent with FERPA and Colorado law, with detailed access controls, breach notice, and retention terms set out in the service contract rather than the MOU.

Homeschool assurances certified by the LEP’s own leadership.

Non-delegableCertified by the LEP, never by the Operator, under any arrangement. Confirm the signer against the actual form: AUD-111 is signed by the superintendent or highest executive officer, and an authorizer’s own assurances document may name different signers. Don’t conflate the two.

Homeschool policies attachment maintained.

JointThe Operator supplies operational detail; the LEP finalizes, holds the document of record, and files it with the authorizer.

Annual calendar and bell schedule documented.

Operator-ledThe Operator’s existing calendar and schedule are formalized as program documents and submitted. These are also the evidence for the 90-hour requirement, so they have to reconcile with the funding claim.

Public-facing documents gathered and accessible on site.

JointThe LEP maintains the master document set; the Operator posts and distributes program-specific items at the site. The program’s website has to say the same thing the packet says, because reviewers check both.

Homeschool notification copies retained and produced to the state on request. § 22-33-104.3(3)(c)

Operator-ledOriginals filed at the program site; copies available to the LEP on demand.

Service contract documented and accessible for authorizer review.

Non-delegableRetained by the LEP and produced on request.

Records of family acknowledgments retained.

Operator-ledSigned acknowledgments held by the Operator; LEP has access on demand.

The MOU is a framework document. It gets signed by both boards, attaches to the out-of-boundary application, and is generally expressed as mutual intent rather than a fully binding agreement.

A short list of provisions should be designated binding on execution even so, because they’re the ones that protect the funding claim. A reviewer looking at a wholly aspirational MOU can reasonably conclude there is no real arrangement behind it.

• Instructional staff licensure and supervision. Direct teacher-pupil instruction for which funding is claimed has to be delivered by educators holding an active Colorado credential. The LEP retains the authority to define and exercise supervision of those teachers, consistent with State Board rule and count audit requirements.
• Records custody, audit access, and privacy. The LEP is the system of record for all funding documentation. The Operator originates or delivers into the LEP’s system, at the time of enrollment, the schedules, calendar, bell schedule, attendance, and instructional-time records that substantiate the hours requirement. Copies held at the Operator’s site are duplicates, not the record.
• The Operator’s tuition and no-private-subsidy representations.
• Pass-through timing. Tight, and binding, because a small Operator can be put out of business by an LEP that receives state money and passes it on sixty days later.
• Annual appropriation. Not optional for a Colorado public entity. Without it, a multi-year financial commitment is a multiple-fiscal-year obligation under Article X, Section 20 of the state constitution. Do not cut it for length.
• Immediate-notice obligations. The events the LEP would otherwise hear about from a reporter, an auditor, or a parent, long after it could have acted.
• Personnel screening. Students are in the building; this one doesn’t wait for a later document.
• The general-provisions article itself, including conflict-of-interest and related-party disclosure, and the flow-down clause that stops the Operator’s vendors from believing the LEP stands behind them.

Reserved for the service contract, with legal review: indemnification and insurance, audit and oversight rights in detail, performance standards and remedies, full FERPA and data-sharing terms, the fee schedule, and termination, default, and transition provisions.

One structural note worth writing into the term section: if the Operator intends to pursue its own authorization in a later year, say so in the MOU and commit both parties to an orderly transition of students, records, and reporting. It’s much easier to agree to that before either side has an interest in the answer.

A fill-in-the-blank version of all of this, with drafting notes on every article, is on the Model MOU page; the funding mechanics are worked out in the pass-through calculator.

• No student personally identifiable information anywhere in an application packet.
• At least 90 and fewer than 360 hours of scheduled instructional time in the semester containing the count date, for every student submitted for funding, demonstrated by calendar and bell schedule. It is a range with a ceiling, and it is measured on the schedule as of the count date rather than on hours delivered. Parent-led and parent-directed instruction doesn’t count toward it. Excluding religious instruction from claimed hours is conservative practice rather than a sourced rule; if your schedule includes a devotional or religious block, exclude it explicitly rather than hoping nobody adds up the columns.
• Part-time homeschool students are flagged Home Based Education = 1, code to funding code 85, and are capped at 0.5 FTE statewide.
• Specialized services are not delivered during program participation, but Child Find does not switch off.
• The LEP’s charter contract must actually authorize the program before the agreement can stand.
• Public-facing materials have to match the packet. Websites, enrollment funnels, and price lists all get read.
• Verify every site address against the district’s own lookup tool, every time, including sites you’re certain about.
• Keep each program’s facts separate. Never carry a number, date, or structure from one packet into another, even between two programs run by the same Operator.
• Flag unverified facts as unverified. Boundaries, entity registrations, prior-year counts, and board calendars are exactly where these applications fail, and they fail on details someone assumed rather than checked.
• Convert relative dates to absolute ones in every document. “Next month” in a file read six weeks later is worse than no date.

Most of these conversations open with whether the numbers work. The five gates in section 05 are the ones worth working through first, before anyone drafts a contract. And when an arrangement isn’t viable, say so and say why — a soft “it depends” costs hours nobody has.

VAO Collaborative works on both sides of these partnerships: matching programs to schools, building the application packet, and drafting the agreements. Get in touch.

Related: the Program Pathway Navigator works out which authorization pathway applies to a specific program, with its requirements and deadlines.