ࡱ> $     I KMO} bjbj<< (^^g ]9ihE E E ###Xq'4) E#\njopo:oot>u,ju?AAAAAA&ȼAE zlt@tzzAooHHHz Ro(E o 6Hz?HH# "o0V#1",0\Sff.fDfE ѯ$uwHxxuuuAAuuu\zzzzfuuuuuuuuu : September 2001 School of Urban and Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Center for the Study of Education Reform University of North Texas Center for Public Policy University of Houston Texas Center For Educational Research Austin Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Fourth-Year Evaluation Year Four Charter School Evaluation Section I: Introduction to the 1999-00 Evaluation 1 The National Picture 1 Texas Charter Schools 2 Evaluation Report 4 Section II: Demographics, Staffing, Expenditures, and Student Performance 7 Introduction 7 Definitions of Schools 7 Classification of Charter Schools for this Analysis 7 Analysis Issues 9 Demographics, Staffing, and Finances 11 Student Demographics 11 Staff Information 13 Revenue and Expenditures 15 School-Level Performance 16 School Ratings 16 Measures of Student Performance 19 Considerations for Interpreting Campus-Level TAAS 20 TAAS Performance 21 Other Measures of Student Performance 24 School Attendance and Completion Measures 26 Student-Level Performance 26 Issues in Using Student-Level Analyses 26 General Information on Students and TAAS Results 28 Students Passing TAAS Matched Students 30 Students Passing TAAS All Students 37 TAAS Texas Learning Index 38 Summary 41 Section III: Charter School Director Survey 43 Reasons for Founding Schools and Opening Challenges for All First Year Schools 43 Challenges of Operating Charter Schools for Second Year and Older Schools 45 Governance, Finance, and Support for All Charter Schools 47 Governance 47 Finances 48 Community Support 50 Organizational Support 51 School Personnel, Curriculum, and Relationships with Traditional Public School Districts 52 Teachers 52 Directors 53 Curriculum 53 Discipline 55 Relationship with Traditional Public School Districts 57 Parents and Students 58 Parents 58 Students 59 Student Recruitment 61 Summary 61 Section IV: Effects of Charter Schools on Traditional Public School Districts 64 Survey of Traditional Public School Districts 64 Development of the Survey Instrument 64 Determination of Survey Sample 64 Survey Procedure 64 Districts Responding to the Survey 64 Findings From Survey of Charter School Effects 67 Survey Response Presentation 67 District Issues Related to Charter Schools 68 Charter School Effects on Districts 69 Districts Students Attending Charter Schools 70 Financial Effects of Charter Schools on Districts 74 Changes in District Policies, Programs, or Services 77 Effects of Charter Schools on Educators in District Schools 78 Charter School Effects on Students and Parents 80 Additional Comments 80 Summary 81 Section V: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 83 Numbers of Charters Revoked, Returned, Renewed 83 Classifying Charter Schools 84 General Characteristics 90 Student Characteristics 90 Charter School Faculties 97 Summary 99 Section VI: Student Satisfaction 100 School Choice, Interest, and Future Plans 104 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School 105 Evaluation of the Charter School 107 Student Satisfaction Over Time 111 Charter Schools with Primarily At-Risk Students 111 Charter Schools with Fewer At-Risk Students 114 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools 116 Summary 119 Section VII: Parental Participation and Satisfaction 121 Introduction 121 Sample Characteristics 122 How Did Parents Find Out about Charter Schools? 123 Factors Affecting the Decision to Choose Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 124 Parent Satisfaction with Previous Schools 125 Parent Satisfaction with Current Schools 127 Parent Participation in Schools 128 Additional Information Provided by Survey 129 Summary 130 Section VIII: Charter School Revenues and Expenditures 131 Revenue Sources 131 Expenditures 134 Expenditures by Function 134 Expenditures by Object 137 Expenditures by Program 137 Summary 138 Section IX: Commentary and Policy Implications 139 Racial and Ethnic Distinctiveness of Charter School Students 139 Teacher Characteristics in Charter Schools 140 Parental Involvement in Charter Schools 141 Charter School Governance 141 Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools 142 Effects on Public School Districts 142 Academic Performance of Charter Schools 143 Appendices 145 Appendix A: Statutory Provisions Governing Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Appendix B: Charter Schools Operating in 1999-00 Appendix C: Survey Instruments Table of Tables Section II II.1 Summary of School Type Classification 8 II.2 Student Demographic Information, 1999-00 School Year 11 II.3 Student Demographic Information by School Generation 12 II.4 Student Demographic Information by School Type 13 II.5 Staff Information, 1999-00 School Year 14 II.6 Staff Information by School Generation 15 II.7 Revenue and Expenditures, 1999-00 School Year 16 II.8 Primary Accountability Rating Categories 17 II.9 Alternative Education Rating Categories 17 II.10 Charter and Other Traditional Public School Performance, 1998 through 2000 Primary Accountability Ratings 18 II.11 Charter and Other Traditional Public School Performance, 1998 through 2000 Alternative Education Ratings 19 II.12 2000 TAAS Performance for All Charter Schools and State Average 22 II.13 TAAS Performance Progress Over Time 22 II.14 TAAS Performance for Generation 1 Charter Schools 23 II.15 Charter Schools and Peer Groups, Comparison of TAAS Performance 24 II.16 College Entrance Examinations for 1999 25 II.17 End of Course and Advanced Course Performance 25 II.18 Student Attendance and Completions for 1999 26 II.19 Number of Students Enrolled by Charter School Type 28 II.20 Number of Students with TAAS Scores by School Type 29 II.21 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests, by School Type Over Two Years 31 II.22 Percentage Passing TAAS Reading, by School Type Over Two Years 32 II.23 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests, by School Type Over Three Years 34 II.24 Attendance Rates by Year and Location 36 II.25 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests Over Three Years, Non-Matched Students 38 II.26 TLI Score Change Over Time, by School Type 39 II.27 TLI Score Change From Grade 8 to Grade 10 39 II.28 TLI Change Distribution for Reading TLI Scores (1999 to 2000) 40 II.29 TLI Change Distribution for Mathematics TLI Scores (1999 to 2000) 40 Section III III.1 Comparing Reasons for Founding Charter Schools 44 III.2 Challenges Opening Charter Schools 45 III.3 Challenges for Second Year and Older Schools 45 III.4 Challenges in Operation 46 III.5 Board Composition 47 III.6 Board Responsibilities 48 III.7 Sources of School Revenue, Mean Percent of Total Budget 48 III.8 Sources of School Revenue as a Mean Percent, Comparing Charter Schools Opened before and after August 1999 49 III.9 Title I, Special Education, and LEP Revenue, as a Percentage of Affirmative Answers 49 III.10 Special Services Revenue as a Percentage of Affirmative Answers, Comparing Charter Schools Opened before and after August 1999 50 III.11 Support from Businesses and the Community, by Number of Charter Schools Responding Affirmatively 51 III.12 Support from Parents, by Number of Schools Responding Affirmatively 51 III.13 Support From Educational Organizations, by Number of Schools 52 III.14 Number of Teachers 53 III.15 Use of State-Adopted Curriculum 54 III.16 Educational Practices 55 III.17 Student Discipline Characteristics 56 III.18 Disciplinary Incident Ratio, by School Year 56 III.19 Relationship of Charter School with Local School Districts 57 III.20 Parent Participation in Charter Schools 58 III.21 Characteristics of Student Population and Attendance Patterns 59 III.22 Reason for Student Leaving Charter School, Comparing At-Risk and Non-At-Risk Charter Schools 60 III.23 Student Recruitment Techniques, by Number of Charter Schools Responding Affirmatively 61 Section IV IV.1 Districts Responding to Survey, by Size 65 IV.2 Districts Responding to Survey, by ESC Region 65 IV.3 Number of Charter Schools Within or Near District Boundaries, by Districts Responding to Survey 66 IV.4 Charter Schools Within or Near District Boundaries of Survey Respondents, by Percentage of At-Risk Student Population Served 67 IV.5 Districts Responses to the Presence of Charter Schools 68 IV.6 Respondents Reporting Charter School Effects, by District Size 69 IV.7 Intensity of Charter School Effects in Respondents Districts 69 IV.8 Intensity of Charter School Effects, by District Size 70 IV.9 Nature of Charter School Effects in Respondents Districts 70 IV.10 Nature of Charter School Effects, by Size of Respondents District 70 IV.11 Groups of Students Formerly Attending Schools in Respondents Districts, Now Attending Charter Schools 73 IV.12 Intensity of Effects, by Student Group in Respondents Districts 73 IV.13 Nature of Effects, by Student Group in Respondents Districts 74 IV.14 Reasons Respondents Indicated for Reporting Financial Effects 75 IV.15 Respondents Estimates of Lost ADA Funding Amounts 75 IV.16 Respondents Estimates of Lost Federal Funding Amounts 76 IV.17 Reasons Respondents Indicated for Reporting No Financial Effects 77 IV.18 Reasons Respondents Indicated for No Changes in Policies, Programs, or Services 78 IV.19 Effect of Charter School on Morale of Educators in Respondents District 79 Section V V.1 Charters Revoked, Returned, and Renewed 83 V.2 Average At-Risk Percentages for Charter Schools by Category 85 V.3a Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students 86 V.3b Charter Schools Serving 75 Percent or More At-Risk Students 88 V.3c 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools 89 V.4 Overall Charter School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 1999-00 91 V.5 Charter Schools Dominated by One Ethnic/Racial Group 92 V.6a Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students, Student Characteristics 93 V.6b Charter Schools Serving 75 Percent or More At-Risk Students, Student Characteristics 95 V.6c 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 96 V.7 Charter School Special Populations, 1999-00 97 V.8 Charter School Faculty, 1999-00 98 Section VI VI.1 Distribution of Responses Across Schools and Weights Used to Balance Responses 101 VI.2 Characteristics of Samples 104 VI.3 Post-High School Plans of Students in Samples 105 VI.4 Influence to Attend Charter School 106 VI.5 Reasons Students Chose a Charter School 107 VI.6 Students' Comparison of Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 109 VI.7 Grades Respondents Give to Their Charter School 110 VI.8 Students' Plans for the Upcoming School Year 111 VI.9 Characteristics of Samples from Charter Schools Serving Primarily At-Risk Students 112 VI.10 Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Serving Primarily At-Risk Students 113 VI.11 Percentage of Students in Charter Schools with Primarily At-Risk Students Who Say Charter is Better than School They Would Have Attended 114 VI.12 Characteristics of Samples from Charter Schools Serving Fewer At-Risk Students 114 VI.13 Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Serving Fewer At-Risk Students 115 VI.14 Percentage of Students in Charter Schools with Fewer At-Risk Students Who Say Charter School is Better than School They Would Have Attended 116 VI.15 Characteristics of 75 Percent Rule Charter School Samples 117 VI.16 Student Satisfaction with 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools 118 VI.17 Percentage of Students in 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools Who Say Charter School is Better than School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 119 Section VII VII.1 Parent Samples Race/Ethnicity 122 VII.2 Parent Educational Attainment and Income Levels 122 VII.3 How Parents Find out about Charter Schools 124 VII.4 School Attributes Influencing Parents' School Choices 125 VII.5 Grades Assigned by Parents to Students' Previous Schools 126 VII.6 Parent Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Previous Schools 126 VII.7 Grades Assigned to Previous and Current Schools 127 VII.8 Parent Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Current Schools 128 VII.9 Parent Participation at Previous and Current Schools 129 VII.10 Where Students Would Have Attended School if not for the Charter School? 130 Section VIII VIII.1 Comparison of Revenue Sources for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 133 VIII.2a Comparison of Budgeted Per-Pupil Revenue for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 134 VIII.2b Comparison of Charter School Budgeted Per-Pupil Revenue by Classification for 1999-00 134 VIII.3 Charter School Budgeted Expenditures for 1999-00 135 VIII.4 Charter School Actual Average Expenditures Per Pupil by Function for 1999-00 136 VIII.5 Charter School Function Expenditures Per Pupil by Classification for 1999-00 137 VIII.6 Comparison of Object Expenditures Per Pupil for Charter Schools by Category for 1999-00 138 VIII.7 Percentage Comparison of Budgeted Program Expenditures for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 139 Section I: Introduction to the 1999-00 Evaluation During the past five years, Texas charter schools have developed within the context of the growth of the charter school movement throughout the United States. This introduction describes the national picture as a way of better understanding Texas charter schools, describes the charter school movement in Texas, and then provides the organization for the fourth-year report. The National Picture Charter schools are nonsectarian publicly funded schools, but they operate more like private schools in a free market. For example, in Texas and other states, charter schools are exempt from many state statutes and rules related to school operations, however they still must comply with federal and state statutes concerning health, safety, and civil rights. Charter schools are created for many reasons, but the primary motivation is to provide a vision of schooling not available through the traditional neighborhood public school. More autonomous than other schools, charter schools have the flexibility to use alternative curricula and non-standardized approaches. About one in four charter schools are created to serve students considered at-risk. Charter school laws have emerged rapidly throughout the United States during the last ten years. Since the first 1991 charter legislation enacted in Minnesota, 36 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have enacted charter school laws, and several other states are considering the option. Today, approximately 1,700 charter schools are being operated by a broad range of organizations from community groups to for-profit companies. Five states have over 100 charter schools in operation as of 1999. Arizona has the most charter schools with almost 350 schools in operation, and California ranks second with 234 schools, followed by Michigan with 175, Texas with 168, and Florida with 112. The grade configurations in charter schools range from kindergarten through grade 12, and charter schools typically are smaller than most conventional schools with an average of 250 students enrolled. California has the most charter students of any state with over 120,000 students enrolled in charter schools. In 2000, over 430,000 pupils were enrolled in charter schools. The number of students attending charter schools amounts to less than one percent of public school students in the United States. Although charter schools receive tax monies that would normally go to the attending students home school, one of the common issues concerning charter schools is the difficulty of starting a school without the resources of a public school district, particularly concerning facilities. For-profit educational management organizations (EMOs) such as TesseracT or Edison have provided some charter schools with administrative and facility start-up support. Although charter schools are held accountable in very diverse ways based on the state and/or district in which they are located, they have much more autonomy than traditional neighborhood schools. Because state regulatory practices differ greatly across the United States, there are varying degrees of monitoring. According to The State of Charter Schools 2000 (2000) report, monitoring occurred most frequently in school finances (94 percent), compliance with legislative mandates (88 percent), student achievement (87 percent), and student attendance (81 percent). Other frequently monitored areas were student instructional practices, school governance, student completion, and student behavior. Most charter schools have procedures in place to report on the schools progress to their governing boards, parents, community, funding sources, the chartering agency, and the State Department of Education. Most charter schools use standardized test results for accountability purposes. However, other assessment methods are being incorporated, such as performance assessments, parent satisfaction surveys, and student surveys. Some schools also incorporate student portfolios into their student assessment policies. Texas Charter Schools Considerable autonomy and independence is given to Texas charter schools. Under Texas law, three types of charters are allowed: (1) home-rule education districts, (2) local campus or program charters, and (3) open-enrollment charters. A home-rule district charter, which must be authorized by local district voters, frees the district from most state requirements, including curriculum, employment, and student discipline (Texas Education Code (TEC) 12.001-12.030). No home-rule district charters have been created to date. A campus charter, granted by a local district board of trustees, allows a campus or special program within a campus to operate free of most state and district requirements, including district instructional and academic provisions (TEC 12.051-12.064). A few dozen examples of local campus charters exist in a handful of school districts, including Nacogdoches, Dallas, and Houston. The third type of charter option in Texas is the open-enrollment charter (TEC 12.101-12.120). Much more common than the other two charter options, the application process for open-enrollment charter schools allows organizers to go directly to the State Board of Education, creating new independent school districts that may cross existing district lines. Appendix A includes the Texas Education Code relating to open-enrollment charter schools. Admission policies of charters granted under this provision are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, academic ability, or athletic ability, however students with a history of discipline problems may be excluded. Texas open-enrollment charter schools receive funding for each student in Average Daily Attendance (ADA); this funding is roughly equal to the amount (state plus local and applicable federal funds) that the traditional public school district where the student lives would receive. Charter schools may not charge additional tuition, although grants and fund raising are allowed. Open-enrollment charter schools are public schools that exist independently of local school districts. The original Texas legislation that became law in 1995 allowed for the creation of 20 open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-120). They may be sponsored by a public or private institution of higher education, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, or a governmental entity. In 1997, legislative modifications to state charter school laws increased the number of open-enrollment charter schools allowed by 100 to a maximum of 120 but allowed for an unlimited number of 75 Percent Rule charter schools. To be exempt from the cap placed on the number of open-enrollment charters that may be granted by the State Board of Education, Texas statute (TEC 12.101(a)(2) requires that charter schools maintain an enrollment of 75 percent or more students considered at-risk. The number of students in Texas open-enrollment charter schools has climbed steadily since the first charter school opened in 1996. As shown in Table 1, 17 open-enrollment charter schools operated in Texas during the 1996-97 school year. In 1997-98, 19 charter schools were in operation. In 1998-99, the number of charter schools increased to 89, of which 45 charter schools were designated as 75 Percent Rule. In the 1999-00 school year, the charter schools numbered 146, including 46 designated as 75 Percent Rule schools. Figure 1 Number of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools, 1996-2000  TEC 12.118 calls for the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) to designate an impartial organization with experience evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. The SBOE named a team of three entities to evaluate open-enrollment charter schools. The evaluation collaborative is comprised of researchers from (a) the Center of Urban and Public Affairs and the School of Education at The University of Texas at Arlington, (b) the Texas Center for Educational Research and the Center for the Study of Education Reform at the University of North Texas, and (c) the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston. Under the state statute, the evaluation addresses the following elements of Texas open-enrollment charter schools: Student scores on assessment instruments; Student attendance; Student grades; Student discipline; Socioeconomic data on students families; Parents satisfaction with their childrens schools; Students satisfaction with their schools; Effects of open-enrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts; and Costs incurred by charter schools for instruction, administration, and transportation. Evaluation Report The evaluation report is divided into two separate reports. The annual evaluation report is comprised of eight sections: demographics, staff, expenditures, and student performance; charter school director survey results; effects of charter schools on traditional public school districts; characteristics of open-enrollment charter schools; student satisfaction; parent satisfaction; charter school revenues and expenditures; and commentary and policy implications. The second part of the fourth-year evaluation is the Charter School Profiles that summarize information submitted by charter schools. As in the previous three evaluations, no comparison or analysis of student grades is included in the fourth-year report. It is logistically difficult to collect grades for all charter school students, and grades do not have comparable meanings among charter schools. For this report, researchers collected data from 146 open-enrollment charter schools reported to be in operation during the majority of the 1999-00 school year. The evaluation team grouped charter schools to distinguish between those that serve primarily traditional students not considered at-risk and those serving primarily students who are considered at-risk. Because combining these two types of schools may blur important distinctions or result in inappropriate comparisons of schools, the 146 charter schools evaluated in this report are usually divided into distinct groups for purposes of analysis. Based on 1999-00 PEIMS data, the evaluation team used TEC 12.101(a)(2), as detailed earlier in this introduction, to classify the open-enrollment charter schools into one of three categories: 75 Percent Rule charter schools open-enrollment charter schools serving primarily at-risk students (75 percent or more) open-enrollment charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students Appendix B displays schools according to the classification status determined by the evaluators. Forty-six schools were 75 Percent Rule charter schools, 26 were open-enrollment schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students, and 71 charter schools served less than 75 percent at-risk students. For some analyses, 75 Percent Rule charter schools and charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students are treated as a single category. The evaluation team addresses evaluation topics through: A survey of charter school directors A survey of officials in affected traditional public school districts A survey of charter school students A survey of charter school parents Analysis of TAAS scores and other performance measures for charter school students and comparison group students Analysis of PEIMS financial data The fourth-year evaluation report is organized as follows: The Introduction to the Part Two report was prepared by Dr. Diane Patrick of the School of Education at The University of Texas at Arlington. Section II presents demographics, staff, expenditures, and student performance data for charter school students. Aprile Benner and Dr. Kelly Shapley of the Texas Center for Educational Research and Dr. David Stamman of Academic Information Management, Inc. prepared this section. Section III presents findings from surveys of the directors of open-enrollment charter schools. Dr. Delbert Taebel and Theresa Daniel of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington prepared this section. Section IV presents a summary of a survey of officials in traditional public school districts in areas where charter schools operate. Aprile Benner and Dr. Kay Thomas of the Texas Center for Educational Research prepared this section. Section V contains a review of the characteristics of open-enrollment charter schools and was prepared by Dr. Greg Weiher of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston. Section VI presents findings from satisfaction surveys of students enrolled in open-enrollment charter schools. This section was prepared by Dr. Edith Barrett of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington. Section VII includes findings from satisfaction surveys of parents in charter schools, as well as those in two traditional public school districts and one campus charter school. Dr. Greg Weiher of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston prepared this section. Section VIII examines 1999-00 revenues and expenditures in open-enrollment charter schools. This section was prepared by Dr. Carrie Ausbrooks of the Center for the Study of Education Reform at the University of North Texas. Section IX presents the evaluation teams commentary on the fourth-year evaluation findings. Appendix A includes the statutory provisions governing open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-120). Appendix B includes basic information and the classification system for the open-enrollment charter schools operating for the majority of the 1999-00 school year. Appendix C includes copies of the survey instruments used to collect information from charter school directors, traditional public school district officials, charter school students, and parents of students attending open-enrollment charter schools, traditional public schools, or a campus charter school. The reader should be aware that the charter school evaluation mandated under Texas statute does not constitute a compliance review of open-enrollment charter schools. Evaluators do not examine whether charter schools fulfill their missions or whether they comply with the terms of their charters. The role of the evaluation team is to prepare an annual report about Texas open-enrollment charter schools as a group. For this reason, the report provides limited information about individual charter schools. In this fourth-year report, the evaluation team has attempted to provide a meaningful overview of the required evaluation topics. Section II: Demographics, Staffing, Expenditures, and Student Performance Introduction This chapter describes Texas charter schools' student demographics and program participation for school year 1999-00 and provides summary information about professional staff members, revenue, and expenditures. The descriptive information provides a context for the presentation and analysis of charter school student performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). TAAS performance on reading, writing, and mathematics tests as measured by passing rates and Texas Learning Index (TLI) scores are reported. The reader should take particular note of the charter school classifications used in this chapter, as they differ from those used in the 1998-99 report. In addition, note that some charter schools included in the 1999 report are no longer in operation, making direct comparisons between data from this report and the 1998-99 report inappropriate. Definitions of Schools Charter schools. Open-enrollment charter schools are traditional public schools that are substantially released from state education regulations and exist separate and apart from local independent school districts. Of the 146 charter schools operated for the entire school year, 141 were included in Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports for 1999-00. The demographic and performance information presented in this chapter is restricted to these schools. This chapter includes only open-enrollment charter schools established by the Texas State Board of Education; it excludes campus programs chartered by traditional public school districts. Appendix B lists all open-enrollment charter schools operating during the entire 1999-00 school year. Traditional public schools. For this chapter, the term traditional public school is used to distinguish traditional public schools in independent school districts from open-enrollment charter schools, which are a special subset of all traditional public schools. Classification of Charter Schools for this Analysis In this chapter (as in the entire report), charter schools are classified three ways: (1) by the type of charter granted, (2) by the type of students served, and (3) the time the charter was granted (i.e., application Generation). Throughout this report, the term Generation refers to the time when the charter was granted. For example, the State Board of Education granted Generation 1 charters at meetings in February, April, and May 1996, and these Generation 1 charter schools opened during either the 1996-97 or 1997-98 school year. Classification of schools by type of charter granted. For analyses of performance and demographics, charter schools are classified into three different types. During the first two application Generations, all charters granted were designated open-enrollment, regardless of their mission or the student population served. Beginning with the third Generation, however, applicants had the choice of applying for an open-enrollment charter or a 75 Percent Rule open-enrollment charter. The law requires that applicants awarded 75 Percent Rule charters maintain an enrollment of 75 percent or more students at risk of failure or dropping out. Open-enrollment charter schools may also serve 75 percent or more at-risk students, but they are not required to do so. Classification of schools by kinds of students served. Throughout the chapters in this report, two descriptive charter school categories are used to distinguish open-enrollment charter schools according to the kinds of students they serve. Because some schools serve a preponderance of at-risk students, the charter school evaluation team has adopted a broader definition of at-risk schools than the distinction made in law. To group charter schools in a fair and consistent manner, team members have examined each schools student population to classify it as serving a preponderance of at-risk or non-at-risk students. Therefore, in addition to schools chartered under the 75 Percent Rule, charter schools enrolling at least 75 percent at-risk students are classified separately from those enrolling fewer at-risk students. Forty-four 75 Percent Rule charter schools operated for the entire 1999-00 school year. Of schools with open-enrollment charters, 28 served 75 percent or more at-risk students during the 1999-00 school year, and 69 enrolled less than 75 percent at-risk students. Because data are limited for 75 Percent Rule schools, they are combined with open-enrollment charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students for many analyses presented in this chapter. Table II.1 Summary of School Type Classification 75 Percent Rule Charter SchoolsOpen-Enrollment Charter Schools75% or More At-Risk StudentsLess than 75% At-Risk StudentsNumber of schools442869 The () allows traditional public schools to designate students as at-risk according to a wide range of circumstances, including failing TAAS, coming from single parent homes, or for other reasons that are defined at the district level. , however, does not allow other district-defined reasons to be used to classify students as at-risk for the purpose of counting them under the 75 Percent Rule. The risk factors recognized by for designating students as at-risk are listed below. A student in Pre-Kindergarten through grade 12 is considered to be at risk if one or more of these factors is present: Did not perform satisfactorily on a readiness test or an assessment instrument at the beginning of the school year Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument (TAAS) Is a student of limited English proficiency Is sexually, physically, or psychologically abused Engages in conduct described by Section 51.03, Texas Family Code A student in grades 7 through 12 is considered to be at risk if one or more of these factors is present: Was not advanced from one grade level to the next for two or more school years Has mathematics or reading skills that are two or more years below grade level Did not maintain an average equivalent to 70 in two or more courses Is not maintaining an average equivalent to 70 in two or more courses Is not expected to graduate within four years of the date the student begins ninth grade Did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument (TAAS) Is pregnant or a parent Because does not customarily report student performance information according to at-risk categories, the evaluation team has selected a surrogate for use in comparisons involving 75 Percent Rule charter schools and open-enrollment charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students. Many students who are classified as at-risk are also classified as economically disadvantaged and score similarly on TAAS, thus TAAS scores of economically disadvantaged students are used when comparing state averages to charter schools enrolling 75 percent or more at-risk students. Classification of schools by their duration of operation. An additional way to classify charter schools is by the length of time they have had their charters. Throughout this report, the term "generation" refers to the time the State Board of Education awarded the charter, which often correspond to the number of years the charter school has operated. The generation is noted in this chapter as appropriate. Generation 1 schools began operation in 1996 or 1997, shortly after the first charters were awarded. Of the original Generation 1 schools, 19 remain in operation in the 1999-00 school year. In addition, 39 Generation 2 and 83 Generation 3 schools are included in the 1999-00 analyses. A total of 18 schools have returned their charters, and four charters have been revoked by the SBOE. In most cases, because of the many challenges associated with the start-up year, data from charter schools' first year of operation are not considered for campus-level analyses. Thus, although some Generation 4 schools operated during the 1999-00 school year, they are excluded from analyses in this chapter because only data from their start-up year are available. Analysis Issues Several factors complicate the analysis of charter school demographics, staffing, expenditures, and student performance included in this chapter. Issues of particular concern to the evaluation team are discussed below. The reader is urged to bear these issues in mind when interpreting information related to charter schools. Increasing number of schools. Although an evaluation of charter schools must include an assessment of change over time, results are more complicated and more difficult to interpret than for traditional public schools, and standard comparisons may not be appropriate. For example, the rate at which the number of charter schools has increased is rapid, whereas the number of traditional public school districts has remained relatively constant over the last several years. Even when a district adds a new campus, the general supporting infrastructure is present to facilitate start-up activities. In the case of charter schools, however, the number of schools has increased dramatically each year, as evidenced by the 141 total charter schools included in 2000 AEIS reports. Thus, contrasting charter school results across years must be carefully considered because numbers and types of charter schools are constantly changing. For analyses in this chapter, descriptive information about the type of charter school campusas well as number of studentsis reported to provide context for interpretation of a finding's meaningfulness. Data sources. With the exception of TAAS information, the majority of data examined in this chapter is self-reported by school districts and charter schools. Demographic data are derived from two sources: (1) AEIS reports from and (2) individual student data provided by the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). Data accuracy. As previously noted, 75 Percent Rule charter schools must enroll at least 75 percent at-risk students. However, examination of the data indicates that some of these schools report less than 75 percent at-risk students; some report none. Nonetheless, this analysis will continue to include them with 75 Percent Rule schools. In addition, data for some open-enrollment schools reporting very few at-risk students do not appear to be reasonable, based on other characteristics of the schools. All open-enrollment charter schools are classified based on the data they have reported via PEIMS; however, findings raised questions about data accuracy. Charter schools as campuses or as districts. uses county-district and county-district-campus numbers to identify individual districts and campuses, respectively. Because recognizes open-enrollment charter schools both as campuses and districts and because new charter schools are constantly being created, some overlap may exist in describing and reporting on charter schools. In this chapter, for example, the evaluation team uses campus numbers to obtain data such as peer group comparisons but uses district numbers for access to data about funding. Use of both data sourcescharter campuses and charter districtsleads to instances where the number of charter schools may appear to differ. Analysis tools. The majority of analyses presented in this chapter were performed using the Academic Information Management data analysis library. These programs are designed especially for processing student-level data extracted from PEIMS data sets. Whenever possible, cross-validation of data was used to ensure accuracy. In addition, bounds checks were used within analyses to detect and eliminate statistically improbable data. Unit of analysis. The first section of this chapter pertains to charter school demographics, staffing, and finances. Therefore, the majority of analyses used the school as the unit of analysis. The second section, however, addresses student performance, so most analyses used the student as the unit of analysis. As mentioned previously, this means that the numbers may differ (usually slightly), depending on the unit of analysis. With the school as the unit of analysis, each school receives equal weight, regardless of the number of students. With the student (or teacher) as the unit of analysis, larger schools receive more weight in the calculations. More discussion regarding the use of student-level data is included in that section of this chapter. Demographics, Staffing, and Finances Student Demographics Numerous studies reinforce the linkage between student and campus demographics and performance levels. The presentation of demographic data in this chapter serves as an important contextual backdrop for the examination of student performance presented in later sections. Table II.2 contains demographic information on 141 charter schools (in this case, classified as districts). It is apparent when viewing the information in Table II.2 that differences in percentages of students in racial/ethnic group categories exist between charter schools and the state average. Table II.2 Student Demographic Information, 1999-00 School Year Student Group Charter Schools (N=141)State AverageDifference% African American38.7%14.4%-24.3% Hispanic37.7%39.6%1.9% White21.9%43.1%21.2% Other1.7%2.9%1.2% Economically disadvantaged52.1%49.0%-3.1% At-risk*43.8%n/an/a% Special education6.6%12.1%5.5% Limited English proficient4.0%13.9%9.9Source: 2000 AEIS reports, district-level analysis. *Individual student-level data used for at-risk calculation. Student-level data not available (n/a) for the state average. Within Texas traditional public school districts, less than 15 percent of students are African American; however, this group comprises close to 40 percent of Texas charter schools student population overall. The percentage of Hispanic students in charter schools is roughly the same as the state average, whereas the percentage of White students is about half that of the state. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in charter schools is similar to the state average. It must be noted, however, that given the data accuracy problems discussed earlier, percentages of economically disadvantaged and at-risk students in charter schools are almost certainly higher than those appearing in Table II.2. Percentages of students reported by charter schools as receiving special education services (fewer than seven percent) or classified as limited-English proficient (four percent) are considerably lower than students receiving such services statewide (12 percent and 14 percent, respectively). In Tables II.3 and II.4, demographic data for students in the different generations and types of charter schools are presented. An examination of those data reveals a difference in student demographics across generations and types. Table II.3 presents student demographic information by charter school generation. Although percentages of White students are similar across generations, percentages of African American students increase considerably over time, while percentages of Hispanic students decrease concurrently. Proportions of economically disadvantaged and at-risk students are comparable across generations. Table II.3 Student Demographic Information by School Generation Generation 1 (N=19)Generation 2 (N=39)Generation 3 (N=83)% African American26.9%38.9%43.5%% Hispanic47.2%38.5%33.0%% White22.6%21.0%22.4%% Other3.3%1.6%1.1%% Econ disadvantaged52.5%54.8%50.1%% At-risk46.4%46.6%41.1%% Special education5.8%8.6%5.7%% LEP9.9%2.0%2.8%Source: Analysis of individual student data, 1999-00 Note: Generation 1 schools, primarily established for four years; Generation 2 for three years; Generation 3 for two years Table II.4 presents student demographic information by school type. 75 Percent Rule schools enroll significantly higher percentages of African American students than open-enrollment charter schools, whereas charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students enroll higher percentages of Hispanic students. The enrollment of White students in 75 Percent Rule and charter schools serving primarily at-risk students is comparatively low. Charter schools serving less at-risk students have an almost even split among the three ethnic categories. It should also be noted that 75 Percent Rule schools averaged 57 percent at-risk students. As noted earlier, this is most likely related to data quality problems. Table II.4 Student Demographic Information by School Type 75% Rule (N=44)Open-Enr e" 75% (N=28)Open-Enr < 75% (N=69)% African American56.3%32.7%33.2%% Hispanic29.5%50.3%36.3%% White13.4%15.9%28.1%% Other0.8%1.1%2.4%% Econ disadvantaged56.5%67.2%44.3%% At-risk57.3%92.0%19.3%% Special education5.7%10.9%5.3%% LEP4.2%7.9%2.4%Source: Analysis of individual student data, 1999-00 Note: Low percentage may be due to data quality problems; Open-Enr represents Open-Enrollment As is true when generalizing about traditional Texas public schools by using selected averages, describing all charter schools in such limited terms may often be inappropriate. For example, charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students report 19 percent at-risk students on average, whereas schools serving primarily at-risk students report more than 90 percent at-risk students. It seems reasonable that this disparity relates to differences in student performance and to the degree of instructional challenge offered in the schools' classes. Staff Information In Table II.5, staffing data are presented for charter schools and for Texas traditional public schools in general. The information reported is based on non-zero reports within a category. That is, if the school reports no campus administrators, they are not included in the calculations in Table II.5. Charter schools identified eight percent of their staff members as central administrators, whereas one percent statewide are classified as central administrators. Charter schools also report more than twice the percentage of campus administrators as the state average. Because charter schools function both as districts and as campuses and are generally smaller than most districts, percentages of staff members listed as central administrators would be expected to be greater than overall traditional public school averages, given the economy of scale associated with operating small charter schools. The reported difference, however, is quite large and may be a result of reporting problems. A more detailed analysis of Generation 1 schools (presumably the most reliable in reporting data given their longer experience with PEIMS) revealed some interesting differences among the schools. Of these 19 schools, 6 reported no staff for central administration; 6 also reported no expenditures for campus administration. Four of these schools identified no staff for either central or campus administration. From examination of the data included in AEIS reports, it appears that administrators may be included in the auxiliary staff category. Table II.5 Staff Information, 1999-00 School Year Type of Staff InformationCharter Schools (N varies)State Average% Central administration8.3%0.9%% Campus administration7.3%2.6%Average central administrator salary$51,984$67,463Average teacher salary$27,434$37,567% Minority teachers44.0%26.1%Students per teacher17.0 : 114.9 : 1% Beginning teachers39.3%7.6%% Teachers with one to five years experience40.8%27.0%Teacher average years of experience5.311.9Teacher turnover rate49.0%15.0%Source: 2000 AEIS Reports Salaries for both administrators and teachers are lower in charter schools than average salaries statewide. Part of the difference in teacher salaries may be accounted for by the relative inexperience of charter school teachers. The percentage of beginning teachers in charter schools is significantly higher than the state average (39.3 percent versus 7.6 percent). Similarly, the percentage of charter school teachers with one to five years experience is higher than the state average (40.8 percent and 27.0 percent, respectively). On average, charter school teachers have about half as many years of experience as teachers statewide. The turnover rate for teachers in charter schools49 percentis much higher than the state average of 15 percent. Still, as shown in Table II.6, the turnover rate is lower in the more established Generation 1 schools, perhaps reflecting more stable organizational structures and more experience in hiring teachers well-matched to the requirements and expectations of charter schools. Even for Generation 1 schools, however, the turnover rate is almost three times the state average. Table II.6 Staff Information by School Generation Type of Staff InformationGeneration 1Generation 2Generation 3% Central administration5.5%7.7%9.6%% Campus administration7.1%6.4%7.8%Average central administrator salary$55,365$50,510$51,670Average teacher salary$28,880$29,498$26,128% Minority teachers43.8%41.7%44.5%Students per teacher18.4 : 116.3 : 117.3 : 1% Beginning teachers15.3%31.0%50.0%% Teachers with one to five years experience66.6%45.7%39.3%Teacher average years of experience5.45.65.0Teacher turnover rate42.1%54.8%60.0%Source: 2000 AEIS Reports An examination of the data presented in Table II.6 also reveals that the percentage of central administrators is lower in Generation 1 schools and that, on average, central administrator salaries are higher for those schools than in newer charter schools. Percentages of beginning teachers and turnover rates are lower in Generation 1 schools than in other charter schools. The data shown in Table II.6 seem to indicate a trend toward maturing over generations in terms of organizational efficiencies. Revenue and Expenditures Table II.7 contains information regarding revenue and expenditures in 1999-00 for charter and regular traditional public schools. The percentage of charter school funding from state sources is reported as 96.3 percent, versus the state average of 46.1 percent. Charter schools have no taxing authority and rely almost exclusively on state funds (supplemented to some extent by contributions and federal aid). Total operating expenditures per pupil for charter schools are somewhat less than the state average for traditional public schools. The percentage of charter school expenditures for regular education is greater than the state average for all districts, whereas the percentage of expenditures for special education is less. This is expected, given the small percentage of students in charter schools receiving special education services or who are limited-English proficient. Table II.7 Revenue and Expenditures, 1999-00 School Year Type of Revenue or ExpenditureCharter SchoolsState AverageState aid per pupil, percent supplied96.3%46.1%Total operating expenditure per pupil$5,671$6,354Dollars for instruction per pupil$3,045$3,376% Dollars for instruction (11 & 95)54.2%58.2%% Expenditure regular education94.9%70.9%% Expenditure special education 5.8%12.4%% Fund balance 4.7%13.6% Source: 2000 AEIS Reports While the information in Table II.7 is not partitioned by type of charter school, it should be noted that, on average, Generation 1 schools report a 10 percent fund balance, whereas Generation 2 schools maintain a 5.2 percent fund balance. This disparity probably reflects the difficulties involved with start-up costs versus school operation maturation. For all generations of charter schools, however, the small margins of fund balance maintained indicate that little money is available for unexpected expenses. School-Level Performance School Ratings Texas districts and campuses receive annual accountability ratings based primarily on TAAS performance and dropout rates. Current-year performance standards for the four primary ratings categories are summarized in Table II.8. Each performance standard must be met by each of five student groups: all students, African American, Hispanic, White, and economically disadvantaged. ڒs Division of Performance Reporting is responsible for the calculation of ratings and distribution of summary performance reports, including the AEIS report. Table II.8 Primary Accountability Rating Categories RatingTAAS Passing RateAnnual Dropout RateExemplary (campus and district)90 percent or more students1 percent or lessRecognized (campus and district)80 percent or more students3.5 percent or lessAcceptable (campus) and Academically Acceptable (district)50 percent or more students6 percent or lessLow-Performing (campus) and Academically Unacceptable (district)Less than 50 percent of studentsMore than 6 percentSource: 2000 Accountability Manual The level of performance needed to avoid the Low-Performing rating has increased for TAAS over the last several years. In addition to the ratings shown in Table II.8, a campus serving primarily at-risk students may apply to be rated under Alternative Education (AE) accountability procedures. AE ratings utilize the categories listed in Table II.9. To receive AE ratings, performance standards must be met for all five student groups noted above. Table II.9 Alternative Education Rating Categories RatingTAAS Passing RateAnnual Dropout RateAE: Commended30 percent or more of students passing and 85 percent increasing TLI scores6 percent or lessAE: Acceptable30 percent or more of students 10 percent or lessAE: Needs Peer ReviewLess than 30 percent Greater than 10 percent Source. 2000-01 Alternative Education Accountability Manual Schools may also receive a not rated label due to grade levels served, status as a new school, or when too few students are reported to calculate a rating. Because charter schools are simply rated as "charter school" at the district level, the evaluation team examined campus-level data in order to obtain the information required for analyses. Table II.10 contains ratings for charter schools and for traditional public schools over the past three years. As previously noted, the number of charter schools has increased over time. Table II.10 contains ratings for the 10 charter schools rated in 1998, 15 in 1999, and 66 in 2000. Ratings for charter schools with alternative education ratings, as well as for public alternative education campuses, are shown in Table II.11. The reader is reminded that small numbers can affect the stability of rating percentages by category. For Table II.10, only campuses receiving one of the four primary accountability ratings are included in the calculation of percentages. Thus, the percentages within a category will not match those posted on the web site; those percentages are calculated using all categories of ratings (including non-rated, prekindergarten, and alternative education). Ratings are presented at the campus level to allow examination of the alternative ratings (districts are not rated using the alternative system). Of all campuses in the state, 93 percent were rated using the four primary ratings (e.g., Exemplary). About 67 percent of charter schools received these primary ratings (excluding the charter schools not rated). Table II.10 Charter and Other Traditional Public School Performance, 1998 to 2000 Primary Accountability Ratings (Percentages) Rating199819992000Charter (N=10)PublicCharter (N=15)PublicCharter (N=66)PublicExemplary0%17%13%18%8%20%Recognized10%27%20%30%11%32%Acceptable70%55%47%51%52%46%Low-Performing20%1%20%2%30%2%Source: Division of Student Performance Reporting. Schools are rated as campuses. Note: A small percentage of regular campuses received other ratings related to data quality. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Percentages of Low-Performing charter schools have increased over the three years presented in Table II.10, whereas percentages among traditional public schools have remained about the same. Percentages of traditional public schools rated either as Exemplary or Recognized have increased from 44 percent in 1998 to 52 percent in 2000. Percentages of charter schools in these categories have varied from 10 percent to 33 percent to 19 percent in 2000. The relatively small number of charter schoolsparticularly before 2000should be considered when interpreting these trends. Of the 20 charter schools rated as Low-Performing, none was given that rating solely on the basis of dropout rate. Four failed to meet standards for both TAAS performance and dropout rate, while the remainder failed to meet only the TAAS passing standard. Primary reasons for TAAS failure were low mathematics and writing scores. Only three charter schools failed to meet the TAAS reading standard. Table II.11 compares schools that applied for and received alternative education ratings. Seven charter schools received ratings under this system in 1998, 6 in 1999, and 33 in 2000. Table II.11 Charter and Other Traditional Public School Performance, 1998 through 2000 Alternative Education Ratings (Percentages) Alternative Rating199819992000Charter (N=7) PublicCharter (N=6) PublicCharter (N=33) Public**Commended*n/an/an/an/a0%2%Acceptable29%--83%--27%88%Needs Review71%--17%--73%11%Source: Division of Student Performance Reporting. Schools are rated as campuses. Note: Public school data for 1998 and 1999 was not readily available to evaluators. *The commended rating was instituted in 1999-00. ** Does not include charter schools Measures of Student Performance This section examines three aspects of student performance: student performance as evidenced by TAAS scores, student attendance and engagement in school, and dropout rates. Although test scores are a necessary component of an evaluation required in law for most educational programs (and the major determiner of accountability ratings in Texas), student engagement may be viewed as a precursor to performance measured by a test. TAAS. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is the series of criterion-referenced tests used to rate campuses and districts for the statewide accountability system. In addition, TAAS performance is used for individual student-level instructional decisions. TAAS currently includes three primary subtests: reading, mathematics, and writing. To receive a diploma, students must pass all three subtests at the exit level (grade 10 in 2000), in addition to meeting other coursework requirements. The reading subtest consists of 6 objectives, whereas mathematics has 13. Writing consists of a composition and multiple-choice items covering language usage. Science and social studies subtestscurrently given at grade 8 onlyare scheduled to become part of the accountability system at a later time. Students in grades 3 through 8 currently take TAAS reading and mathematics subtests every year; writing is administered at grades 4, 8, and 10. Grade 9 testing is scheduled to begin in 2003. At that time, a new exit-level version of TAAS (currently given in grade 10) will move to grade 11. The new version will include science and social studies subtests. Grade 10 students will continue to take TAAS mathematics and reading subtests. Thus, the TAAS system continues to expand through grade levels and subjects. The evaluation of charter and traditional public schools will be enhanced as student test scores can be examined over a longer period of time and across more subjects. As noted briefly in the previous section, currently evaluates performance for each of five student groupsAfrican American, Hispanic, White, economically disadvantaged, and all studentsfor TAAS reading, writing, and mathematics subtests. According to the current-year standard, a campus is rated Low-Performing if any student group on any test falls below a 50 percent passing rate. Passing a TAAS subtest has generally meant scoring correctly on 70 percent of items. However, as TAAS has changed, the Texas Learning Index (TLI) is used to set actual percent correct corresponding to a TLI of 70, defined as passing. The passing rate standard (at the campus level) to avoid a Low-Performing label has been raised every year for the last five years. Student attendance. Student engagement in school is a process variable that reflects students perception of their schools value and of how well their school meets their needs. It may be understood, at least partly, in terms of attendance. For most students, being present in the classroom is critical to academic success. Attendance may be particularly important for students with prior low performance levels on academic measures. Attendance may be viewed as an indirect measure of the degree to which a student believes that school is providing what he or she perceives as important. Therefore, although many circumstances affect student attendance, it still may serve as a reflection of the appropriateness of instruction. Completion rates. Measures of successful traditional public school completion are important outcomes (and may be the most important measure for students served by at-risk charter schools). The measure of completion used in this chapter is the annual dropout rate. The 2000 Accountability Manual defines the annual dropout rate as the number of students in grades 7 through 12 who dropped out during a school year divided by the number of students in those grades who were in membership at any time during that school year. Because a cumulative count of students is used in the denominator as well as in the numerator, this method for calculating the dropout rate was designed to neutralize the effects of mobility. Considerations for Interpreting Campus-Level TAAS In a previous section, demographic data were presented to help the reader interpret patterns and to establish a context for information about student performance. TAASa key measure of student performanceis central to the state accountability system. The applicability of TAAS as a measurement tool for students in charter schools may vary from school to school (for example, a school serving primarily students with a history of success on TAAS compared with a dropout recovery school). However, TAAS must have a role in the analysis of charter school performance for there to be public acceptance of student and school outcomes, given the significance of TAAS performance for most other schools in Texas. Change in performance. In this section, performanceand change in performancefor charter school students and traditional public school students are compared and contrasted. Where appropriate, performance and performance change information for groups of traditional public school students, selected on the basis of risk factors and ethnic identification, are used to ensure fair comparisons. The reader is urged to judge changes in TAAS performance cautiously. For example, the percentage of Texas students passing TAAS has increased annually. If the performance of students in a school increases by 10 points, it may be considered an outstanding gain if the state average increases by one point during the same time period, but not if the state average increases by 20 points. In this chapter, the evaluation team has attempted to provide context within which the reader may more appropriately interpret student performance change. Non-matched students. When TAAS passing rates are compared over time at the campus level, scores pertain to different sets of students from one year to the next. For analyses provided in this chapter, scores are generally reported as the percent passing for all grade levels combined. Matched scores for individual students are presented in the next section of this chapter, which also contains TLI scores. Consideration of all students versus economically disadvantaged students. As explained in the introduction, state-level data for economically disadvantaged students are used as a state-level surrogate for at-risk students to make the most reasonable comparisons between charter schools serving primarily at-risk students and state averages. For charter schools serving less at-risk students, state scores for all students are used for comparison. This seems appropriate, given the relatively small percentages of economically disadvantaged students reported by charter schools enrolling less at-risk students. Starting point and ease of increasing scores. A familiar phenomenon associated with many criterion-referenced tests such as TAAS is a ceiling effect. That is, when many students already score at the very upper ranges of measurement, gains become difficult to achieve. On the other hand, very low scores are frequently associated with significant gains; progress is often easier to attain when the starting point is very low. Subject areas selected. In most cases, the analyses presented in this chapter are restricted to all tests taken, reading, and mathematics. Although writing, science, and social studies subtests are administered at selected grades, change over contiguous grade levels cannot be measured. The reader should also note that the all tests taken category relates directly to both reading and mathematics passing rates andfor certain grade levelswriting. TAAS Performance TAAS performance. Table II.12 compares 1999-00 charter school and statewide TAAS performance data. Prior-year data appear later in this chapter. It should be noted that percentages under the charter schools column combine information for all generations and types of charter schools for an overall look at these schools. Information is presented separately for these schools later in this chapter. Table II.12 2000 TAAS Performance for All Charter Schools and State Average Percent of All Students* Passing TAASCharter SchoolsState AverageDifferenceAll tests taken43.1%79.9%36.8Reading64.2%87.4%23.2Writing58.4%88.2%29.8Mathematics52.5%87.4%34.9Percent of Students by Groups Passing All Tests TakenAfrican American39.4%68.0%28.6Hispanic43.4%71.8%28.4White60.4%89.3%28.9Economically disadvantaged41.4%70.0%28.6 Source: 2000 AEIS reports for 141 charter schools. *All students refers to students tested in grade levels at which TAAS is administered. It is apparent from an examination of the data presented in Table II.12 that TAAS performance in charter schools is lower than the state average in all areasparticularly in mathematics and writing. Comparing TAAS performance by student group also shows charter school performance to be lower than state averages. The lower performance rates observed in charter schools are consistent across all student groups. The fact that there are inexperienced teachers in charter schools may account for some of the differences, particularly in mathematics performance. Texas schools generally have difficulty attracting qualified mathematics teachersespecially at higher grade levels where qualified math teachers may demand higher salaries than some charter schools can offer. Table II.13 displays TAAS performance over time. As already mentioned, these are not the same schools each year. Moreover, given the requirement that there be at least five students in a category before performance is reported, the actual number of schools in each category may vary. Table II.13 TAAS Performance Progress Over Time Subject AreaAll Charter SchoolsState Average199819992000199819992000All tests taken43.1%51.8%43.1%73.1%78.1%79.9%Reading61.9%74.5%64.2%83.3%86.3%87.4%Writing59.6%68.8%58.4%84.2%87.9%88.2%Mathematics45.5%60.0%52.5%80.4%85.6%87.4%Source: 2000 and 1999 AEIS reports The data presented in Table II.13 demonstrate the difficulty in making trend analyses when the underlying base of schools is changing. In 1998, the number of charter schools with TAAS data varied from 15 to 16 (depending upon the subject area), with 1999 varying between 42 and 47 charter schools and 2000 including between 100 and 115 charter schools. While the state average increases each year for each subject area, the base of schools is relatively stable, allowing such comparisons to be made reliably. For now, however, it is difficult to make definitive statements about charter school change over time at this unit of analysis, given the continuous change in the numbers and types of schools. The reader is urged to keep these caveats in mind when examining longitudinal campus-level data for charter schools. The student-level analyses presented later in this chapter will somewhat mitigate this problem. To allow an examination of performance trends without the issue of new schools, Table II.14 presents data from the 19 Generation 1 schools still in operation in 1999-00. These schools have been separated according to the percentage of at-risk students served. Although the number of schools is small, significant progress is evident for schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students, which have doubled their students' performance levels for all tests taken. Charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students, although performing at a higher level than schools enrolling primarily at-risk students, also lag behind the overall state average by nearly 20 percentage passing points. This disparity may be understated because these schools report fewer economically disadvantaged students than are reported at the state level (44 percent, compared to 49 percent), and economically disadvantaged students in general do not perform at the same level as students who are not economically disadvantaged. Table II.14 TAAS Performance for Generation 1 Charter Schools Subject AreaOpen-Enr e" 75% (N=5)Open-Enr < 75% (N=14)199819992000199819992000All tests taken19.3%33.8%44.2%51.7%60.0%62.0%Reading47.0%57.8%63.2%68.9%84.1%78.0%Writing34.5%62.2%59.8%68.8%69.7%73.2%Mathematics22.4%41.2%58.6%56.1%67.6%71.5% Although significant strides have been made by students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, it will take time for them to reach the average statewide performance levels. As will be shown in Table II.15, about 70 percent of economically disadvantaged students in the state(the closest approximation for at-risk students at the state level(pass all tests taken. If progress can be maintained at the current rate, it will still require nearly three years for 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving a majority of at-risk students to meet the current state average for economically disadvantaged students. This projection assumes that the rates at which students statewide improve their TAAS performance remain constant. Charter schools serving less at-risk students would require even longer to approach overall state TAAS performance levels. Changes in the TAAS itself over the next three years, however, may make any computations of this sort moot. Information in Table II.15 compares charter schools with their traditional public school comparison groups or peer groups as determined by . provides a peer group for each Texas campus; peer groups are not constructed for districts. The peer group consists of 40 similar schools, based primarily on demographic characteristics, such as percentage of minority and economically disadvantaged students and student mobility rates. Peer groups allow for comparisons of campus performance for similar schools. Table II.15 Charter Schools and TEA Peer Groups, Comparison of TAAS Performance All Charter Schools75% Rule (N=9)Open-Enr e" 75% (N=8)Open-Enr < 75% (N=36)CharterPeersCharterPeersCharterPeersCharterPeersAll tests43.1%76.6%34.9%72.8%41.4%73.6%50.4%78.2%Reading64.2%86.2%56.6%84.1%56.6%83.1%71.2%87.5%Math52.5%84.5%45.0%81.8%45.0%83.6%58.9%85.4%Source: AEIS database, 1999-00 A peer group has been identified for less than half of charter schools. For 2000 AEIS reports, nine 75 Percent Rule schools, eight charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, and 36 charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students had identified peer groups. Because they are part of the public record, comparisons based on these data are reported in this chapter. Although the viability of the selected comparison may seem inappropriate in some instances, peer group comparisons cannot be ignored. Therefore, two points should be emphasized. First, whether or not peer groups are strictly equivalent to charter schools, performance differences between charter schools and their peer group averages are quite large in some cases. Second, mathematics performance for charter schools (as noted in Table II.15) compares less favorably to the state average than does reading performance, regardless of the type of comparison made. This is perhaps most disconcerting when examining the contrast between charter schools serving less at-risk students and the state average, because these schools do not purport to serve large numbers of at-risk students. The evaluation team acknowledges the difficulty of making appropriate analyses of student performance in relatively new entities such as charter schools. Every effort has been made to identify the appropriate categories within which to make comparisons and to build the most useful comparisons. Within this context, several relevant pointssuch as the small number of campuses and students, difficulties in matching campuses, and so forthare discussed throughout the remainder of this chapter. The reader is reminded to bear these points in mind when forming judgments about the data presented. Other Measures of Student Performance Tables II.16 through II.18 include non-TAAS student performance information from AEIS. The number of schools and districts varies according to indicators used in tables. For example, attendance information is generally available for all schools and districts, whereas dropout information is available only for schools and districts serving grades 7 and higher. Similarly, college admission testing rates and school completion data are available only for schools with graduating seniors. Students interested in pursuing higher levels of education are those most likely to attempt either the SAT or ACT. Table II.16 contains information about schools with upper-grade students taking college admission exams. These data are only available for four charter schools. Information is not available to determine why this discrepancy exists. It may be because many charter school students are at-risk and have lower expectations for future education. It may also be due to students' socioeconomic status and the cost of the tests. Low-income students may see four-year college study as a financial impossibility and plan to attend community colleges where SAT and ACT are not required. Level of school performance, parent expectations, or other factors AEIS does not report could also be factors. Table II.16 College Entrance Examinations for 1999 Performance MeasureCharter Schools (N=4)State AveragePercent tested 43.3%61.8%Percent above criterion 20.0%27.2%SAT I mean total 857989ACT mean composite 17.320.2Source: 2000 AEIS Reports Table II.17 presents information on the percentage of advanced courses completed. No elementary schools are included in Table II.17. Table II.17 End of Course and Advanced Course Performance Outcome Measure75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%State Eco-Dis StudentsOpen-Enr < 75%State All StudentsAdvanced course completion14.0%11.3%24.9%17.5%Passing Biology57.8%68.2%63.8%80.3%Passing Algebra20.1%31.3%28.2%43.9%Passing English II55.5%68.6%59.6%77.7%Passing U.S. History43.3%54.9%61.0%72.1%Source: 2000-01 AEIS Reports designates courses as advanced, but districts set passing standards for these courses. In this case, percentages of students with advanced course completions are higher for charter schools, regardless of the type of student population served. When percentages of students passing the four end-of-course examinations (administered and scored by contractors) are examined, however, charter schools, regardless of students served, score somewhat below state averages. As in earlier analyses, when comparing percentages of students completing and passing end-of-course examinations, the comparison group for 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving primarily at-risk students is economically disadvantaged students statewide, whereas charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students are compared with all students statewide. School Attendance and Completion Measures Other measures of student performance(aspects related to school attendance and completion(are presented in Table II.18. Across all school types, charter schools had lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates than state comparison groups. Table II.18 Student Attendance and Completions for 1999 Outcome Measure75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%State Eco-Dis StudentsOpen-Enr < 75%State All StudentsAttendance 90.1%95.1%90.9%95.4%Annual dropout rate 5.7%1.5%5.3%1.6%Source. TEA 2000-01 AEIS Reports Other measures of student completion, including longitudinal dropout rate, graduation rate, GED rate, and continuing students, are available in AEIS reports. These four- or six-year measures are not yet appropriate for use in charter school accountability, given the length of time that charter schools have been in existence. However, these measures can be used in future analyses. Student-Level Performance The analyses presented thus far in this chapter have focused on the school level. Subsequent analyses utilize performance data for individual students. provided the evaluation team with information for more than 28,000 students who had been enrolled in a charter school at any time during school years 1996-97 through 1999-00. It is likely that more students were actually enrolled, but one requirement for the database secured from was that a valid identification number be present. As explained in this section, data quality problems and other issues complicate charter school research. Issues in Using Student-Level Analyses The use of student-level analyses provides the opportunity to track students across time, rather than groups of students (as in a school-level analysis). This strengthens the evaluation teams analyses; still, several issues may complicate the use of student-level data. Identification of students. To track students over time, consistent identification numbers must be available. There have been numerous problems with the student identification numbers provided by charter schools. To ensure confidentiality, actual student identification numbers were not provided to the evaluation team; instead, a scrambled identification number (constant across years) was used. Protection of student privacy. The Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) requires the protection of the privacy of students. In practice, this has meant the suppression of scores by when there are fewer than five students in a group within a school. In this analysis, schools are combined by type. In some cases, there are few schools in a group. It is possible that with so few schools, identification of individual students(even when there are more than five in a group(may be possible. Therefore, in order to protect confidentiality, when information is available for fewer than 20 students, no data are reported. (In any case, the stability of the data would be questionable with so few students.) Survivorship across time. Another potential difficulty with student-level analysis is survivorship across time. In a true cohort analysis, membership in an original group of students declines over time through movement to other schools and other types of attrition. The analysis conducted in 1999 included nearly 16,000 students. Of these, 932 students obtained a GED, 491 graduated, 2,123 were reported as having a leaver code (for various reasons including dropout), and another 2,643 could not be found in the 1999-00 database. The most likely reason is an unmatchable identification number from 1999 to 2000. Thus, approximately 17 percent of the group had unmatchable identification numbers from one year to the next. About 60 percent of 1999 students with matched information remain in 2000. Small numbers of cases in groups. Although the database contains a reasonably large number of students, for some analyses, the numbers may be quite small. For example, membership in a particular subset requires that students have attended a charter school in 1998, a traditional public school in 1999, and a charter school in 2000. With such strict criteria, few students can be identified for the group. Thus, the reader is urged to note the numbers of students per category, which are identified as data are presented. Constant creation of new charter schools. Students are enrolled in charter schools that have been in operation for different periods of time, with a presumed increase in effectiveness over time. As noted earlier, this analysis is limited to schools with open-enrollment charters granted by the State Board of Education and excludes district-sanctioned campus charter schools. Switching versus continuing in a school. Just as there are many reasons for a parent to enroll a child in a private school, there are many reasons for enrollment in a charter school. Similarly, there are many reasons to move back to the traditional public school system from a charter school. Some reasons for changing center on dissatisfaction with a schools operation or real or perceived instructional effectiveness. In other cases, a particular school may simply not offer the next grade level for the child. An example is a charter school offering classes through grade 8. If no other charter school option exists, students must then enroll in a traditional public school. Actual reasons for enrollment or withdrawal are impossible to ascertain from the data available to the evaluation team. For this report, the evaluation team has made (without direct evidence) a common sense presumption: we presume that when a parent enrolls a child in a charter school, the parent has made a decision that implies a strong belief in the superiority of the school, for a variety of reasons. This decision often translates into higher involvement in the childs education. Thus, children who continue to be enrolled in schools other than traditional public schools over time may not be representative of students enrolled for shorter periods of time. This is an important consideration when, as shall be seen in this section, performance calculated at the student level may differ greatly from performance calculated at the campus level. General Information on Students and TAAS Results Numbers of students. Numbers of students in charter or traditional public schools are shown in Table II.19. Because new charter schools open each year, numbers of students enrolled in charter schools have increased dramatically in 1999 and again in 2000. Numbers of students included in the database who were enrolled in a traditional public school in 2000 but who had been enrolled previously in charter schools (see Table II.19, last row) consequently decreased. Table II.19 Number of Students Enrolled by Charter School Type 1997-981998-991999-0075% Rule--1655,929Open-Enr e" 75%3591,8485,341Open-Enr < 75%1,2475,13714,051Public*16,48913,2613,012* Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1997-98 and 1999-00. For example, the 16,489 students listed for 1997-98 enrolled in charter school in either 1998-99 or 1999-00. Not all students included in Table II.19 have TAAS scores for every year. TAAS is not given at every grade level. Moreover, some students may not be tested each year because of absences, or they may be excluded because of a special education admission, review, dismissal (ARD) committee decisions. Student performance. This section of the chapter focuses on TAAS performance over time and incorporates the use of Texas Learning Index (TLI) scores. Data collected for each student include an indication of whether the student passed reading and mathematics TAAS and the students TLI score. TLI scores are provided both for TAAS reading and mathematics tests. These scores can be used to measure a students progress from one year to the next. TLI scores are also used to set the passing standard from year to year to maintain equal difficulty levels. Table II.20 includes the number of students with available TAAS scores; this is a subset of the students in Table II.19. Many charter schools include only high school grades, where TAAS is currently given only at grade 10. This accounts for many of the students without TAAS scores. Table II.20 Number of Students with TAAS Scores* by School Type 1997-981998-991999-00***1999-00 ****75% Rule--331,4061,878Open-Enr e" 75%578751,4842,076Open-Enr <75%7472,6085,4946,306Public**8,2336,3891,1181,388*Students with TAAS reading scores; slightly more have TAAS mathematics scores. **Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1997-98 and 1999-00. ***Students with TLI of 30 or more. ****All students with a scored TAAS test. In Table II.20, there are two columns headed 1999-00. The difference between these two columns relates to the use of TLI scores in the analyses in this section of the report. Included in the TAAS report is a code to indicate whether to score the test. This code is used to determine which students to include in the analyses. In addition, the evaluation team has imposed another criterion: only students with TLI scores of 30 or greater are to be included. Because the TLI is a derived score, students can receive a TLI value but not actually get any items correct. While there is no set point at which a TLI becomes meaningful, TLI scores of 30 have been used in other analyses performed in a variety of areas and will be adopted here. Column four in Table II.20 includes the number of students with TLI scores of 30 or greater. The fifth column includes all students with a scored TAAS test, regardless of TLI score. There are implications associated with this decision. For example, by restricting the use of TLI scores to those of 30 or greater, about 18 percent of students with some type of TAAS score are excluded. Still, this seems appropriate to ensure that scores actually measure some type of ability rather than simply indicating the presence of an answer sheet. In practice, this also means that percentages of students passing are overstated, while gainsas measured by TLI scoresare understated. The evaluation team believes that this restriction actually provides a more accurate representation (within this study context only) than including all students who have TAAS scores. Results without this restriction will be included in selected discussions so that the reader may judge its effects. Students Passing TAAS Matched Students The rate at which students pass TAAS is a critical component in determining a schools accountability rating. It is also important for individual students because passing TAAS demonstrates mastery of instructional content for subject areas(and for Texas Essential Skills and Knowledge (TEKS)(covered by TAAS. In the future, criteria for promotion to certain grade levels will also include passing TAAS. As mentioned above, it is important to stress that the number of students in some categories is small. Percentages of students passing TAAS on particular types of campuses may differ dramatically when matched-student rather than campus-level analysis is used. For example, while there are 2,890 students with 2000 TAAS scores in either 75 Percent Rule schools or charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, only about 13 percent (368) of those students were enrolled in these schools during both 1999 and 2000. Note that this 13 percent refers to students with TLI scores of 30 or more for each year. Without this restriction, the percentage would be nearly the same15 percent in these schoolsfor two years. Thus the reader should consider numbers and percentages of students in categories when drawing conclusions about school effectiveness. This section presents two types of analyses. Data contrasting performance over two years(1999 and 2000(are presented in Tables II.21 and II.22, whereas longitudinal information over three years(1998 through 2000(appears in Table II.23. All data used in Tables II.21 through II.23 are for matched students (students for whom scores are available from one year to the next). As expected, more matched students have two years than three years of TAAS scores. As before, 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving primarily at-risk students are combined into one at-risk category; charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students and traditional public schools constitute their own categories. Table II.21 contains percentages of matched students passing TAAS reading and mathematics subtests for 1999 and 2000. Writing scores are not included in this table because the writing subtest is administered only in grades 4, 8, and 10; thus it cannot be contrasted from one year to the next for matched students. Table II.21 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests, by School Type over Two Years 1998-991999-00ReadingMathematics75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%19992000N Students19992000CharterCharter77.7%89.4%36870.9%81.4%Public Charter63.1%62.3%89652.2%56.7%CharterPublic 78.1%84.5%11072.8%80.7%Public* Public* 56.0%72.0%2557.6%65.3%Open-Enr < 75%19992000N Students19992000CharterCharter72.6%79.5%1,24862.2%71.3%Public Charter75.6%74.9%1,72970.1%69.6%CharterPublic78.4%83.1%44667.3%82.8%Public*Public*86.4%90.1%8170.3%84.6%* Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1996-97 and 1999-00. An examination of the data in Table II.21 reveals a high level of reading performance by students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, particularly those enrolled both in 1999 and 2000. Their performance exceeds that of students in all other categories. This result merited further examination of data. One definition of at-risk centers on failure to pass TAAS (there are others, as documented in the beginning of this report). For 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving a majority of at-risk students, nearly 78 percent of students passed the TAAS reading subtest in 1999. By contrast, in grade 6 at the state level, 65 percent of at-risk students passed in 1999, whereas 94 percent of non-at-risk students passed. This information does not represent an aggregation across grades at the state level; instead, grade 6 was selected as the middle range of grades tested. It is possible that these sixth-grade students are not representative of students in the typical at-risk classification. As noted previously, using only TLI scores of 30 or higher will overstate the passing rate. When all students with TAAS scores are included, passing rates for reading of students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students for two years are 70.0 percent in 1999 (7.7 points lower than Table II.21) and 70.6 percent in 2000 (18.8 points lower). Mathematics scores vary similarly. The difference in scores for charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students is smaller: 6 percentage points for reading in 1999 and 8.4 points in 2000. Differences between types of charter schools will be further examined later in this chapter. Although not appearing in tabular form, an examination of the data also reveals that only about 15 percent of students who attended charter schools serving primarily at-risk students both years had TLI scores below 70 (or not passing) in 1999. By contrast, among traditional public school students who formerly attended charter schools, 32 percent tested in both years had TLI scores below 70 in 1999. About 25 percent of students tested in both years in charter schools serving less at-risk students scored below TLI 70 in 1999. In other words, the percentage of students tested in 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving primarily at-risk students who were previously failing TAAS (below TLI 70) is somewhat lower than might be expected. It is reasonable to assume that a transition from one school to another would require some degree of adaptation by the student because of the new environment. This is likely to be the case when moving from public elementary to public middle schools, just as when moving from traditional public to charter schools. In Table II.22, four categories of movement are included. This table presents a more in-depth examination of a subset of the data presented in Table II.21. Because mathematics and reading scores are similar, mathematics scores are omitted for brevity. Table II.22 Percentage Passing TAAS Reading, by School Type over Two Years 1998-991999-00Reading75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%19992000DifferenceCharterCharter77.7%89.4%11.7PublicCharter63.1%62.3%-0.8CharterPublic78.1%84.5%6.4Public*Public*56.0%72.0%16.0Open-Enr < 75%19992000DifferenceCharterCharter72.6%79.5%6.9PublicCharter75.6%74.9%-0.7CharterPublic78.4%83.1%4.7Public* Public* 86.4%90.1%3.7* Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1996-97 and 1999-00. Of the eight combinations presented, the highest rates of gain are found among students who remained in the same type of school for both years. Students who moved from traditional public to charter schools (both types) have small losses in percentage passing rates. Students transferring from charter to traditional public schools have gains somewhat smaller than for students remaining in the same school both years. Although gains for students now in traditional public schools for two years but formerly in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students (16.0) are greater than gains for students in charter schools enrolling primarily at-risk students for two years (11.7), the relative starting point must be considered. The lower the starting point, the more reasonable it is to expect large gains; thus, given the lower starting point of students in traditional public schools for two years (56 percent) relative to those in charter schools for two years (77.7 percent), the larger gain for traditional public school students is to be expected. As noted previously, similar, but not identical, patterns are observed for mathematics performance. An examination of percentages of students tested yields interesting findings. As computed from the student-level data, about 64 percent of students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, at grade levels where TAAS is given, were tested (this count is not restricted to TLI scores of 30 or higher). About 87 percent of students in charter schools serving less at-risk students and about 90 percent of former charter school students currently in traditional public schools were tested. This is contrasted to 90 percent tested in traditional public schools overall, as reported in AEIS for 2000 (about 86 percent are included in the accountability system). The reason most commonly given for not testing students is absence. In addition, many students tested were not included in the accountability calculations, primarily because they were mobile. The school-level analysis yielded slightly different results, indicating that 91 percent of charter school students (in all types of schools) were tested but that only about 57 percent were included in the accountability system. Higher absence rates may be expected for at-risk students; still, actual percentages tested raise the issue of the representativeness for scores of students attending (and continuing to attend) charter schools. To further examine student performance and the movement of students between schools, Table II.23 presents three years of data for a subset of the students represented in Table II.22. There are fewer students in each category and, of course, many different possible combinations. The categories presented are those containing the most students, particularly for charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students. In many cases, data have been suppressed because of FERPA requirements. As with the information presented in Tables II.21 and II.22, performance levels of students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students are higher than for other categories, including state averages. Number of students for state averages are not listed but are in excess of one million students for each category (denoted by *). Table II.23 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests, by School Type Over Three Years 1997-981998-991999-00ReadingMathematics75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%199819992000N199819992000CharterCharterCharter------6------Charter PublicPublic------9------CharterCharterPublic------3------Public CharterCharter91.1%82.7%96.7%21491.8%82.7%94.0%PublicPublicCharter71.9%69.4%64.3%55658.1%61.0%62.5%Public CharterPublic87.8%86.3%90.9%6684.6%90.7%92.3%State Average (economic disadv)73.7%77.8%79.8%*71.5%78.6%81.1%Open-Enr < 75%199819992000N199819992000CharterCharterCharter78.2%81.1%87.6%13872.9%76.3%86.8%CharterPublicPublic73.9%89.1%89.1%4660.4%70.8%85.4%CharterCharterPublic94.3%92.4%83.0%5380.7%88.4%96.1%PublicCharterCharter81.0%75.0%81.0%48076.1%67.5%76.3%PublicPublicCharter79.7%78.9%76.6%1,15074.0%76.3%75.5%PublicCharterPublic85.9%80.0%82.7%22078.5%72.8%83.7%State Average (all students)83.3%86.3%87.4%*80.4%85.6%87.4% As previously noted, students remaining in charter schools for three years (shown only for charter schools serving less at-risk students in Table II.23) demonstrate increasing levels of performance. These increases exceed state averages, both for reading and mathematics. As noted in Tables II.21 and II.22, transitions from traditional public to charter schools generally resulted in declines in percentages passing, whereas transitions from charter to traditional public schools yielded an increase. This trend is further examined in Table II.23; however, only three categories for charter schools serving primarily at-risk students contain sufficient students to be reported. These three categories are examined separately. For charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students, the transition from charter schools to two years of traditional public school yields an immediate gain, followed by stable performance. On the other hand, two years of these charter schools followed by traditional public school yields a considerable loss. Performance among students attending charter schools serving primarily at-risk students for two years after one year in traditional public schools declined after enrollment in charter schools. However, these students subsequently surpassed their year-one performance levels at the end of their second year in charter schools. A similar trend was evident for charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students, where performance declined and then increased to prior levels. (The reader should be aware of this pattern when reviewing the two-year change data presented in Tables II.21 and II.22.) Perhaps the most interesting of these comparisons involves students moving from traditional public to charter schools and then returning to traditional public schools. In most instances, performance declined, only to rebound following return to traditional public schools. These changes in performance are not dramatic, but coincide with those noted in the 1999 analyses (although with fewer students). Information for the three transition combinations for different charter school types is represented in Graph 1. Graph II.1 Student Performance Change by School and Transition Type Note: Scaling was selected to allow change over time to be easily observed; differences in most cases are not as large as apparent from the visual presentation. Label 1998 1999 2000 PCC1 public 75% rule/Open-Enr e" 75% 75% rule/Open-Enr e" 75% PPC1 public public 75% rule/Open-Enr e"75% PCP1 public 75% rule/Open-Enr e" 75% public PCC3 public Open-Enr <75% Open-Enr <75% PPC3 public public Open-Enr <75% PCP3 public Open-Enr <75% public Although it was not possible to analyze performance in detail with the available information for students attending 75 Percent Rule schools or charter schools serving primarily at-risk students for two years after one year in traditional public schools, examination of attendance (a process variable) helps to explain the passing rate fluctuation. Table II.24 shows attendance rates for charter school types for each of three years for the public/charter/charter attendance pattern. Table II.24 Attendance Rates by Year and Location Charter School TypePublic 1998Charter 1999Charter 200075% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%96.9%88.0%97.9%Open-Enr < 75%97.1%92.1%95.0% A comparison to overall attendance rates (Table II.18) indicates that students in traditional public schools in 1997-98 and in charter schools (any type) in 1998-99 and 1999-00 have attendance rates in 2000 much higher than those overall for 75 Percent Rule schools and charter schools serving primarily at-risk students (average 90.1 percent) and for charter schools serving less at-risk students (average 90.9 percent). As is seen in Graphs II.2 and II.3, the decline in attendance during the transition from traditional public school to charter school mirrors the change in percent passing on the TAAS reading subtest. As students remain in charter schools from 1998-99 to 1999-00, both attendance and the TAAS reading passing rates increase. Graph II.2 Student Performance and Attendance Change, 75 Percent Rule Schools and Charter Schools Serving Primarily At-Risk Students  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Graph II.3 Student Performance and Attendance Change, Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Students Passing TAAS All Students Table II.25 presents TAAS passing percentages for all students in the database. This information is computed at the student level, as opposed to the district level, as in Table II.13 presented earlier. The numbers of students in the two tables do not match because district level data includes all students regardless of identification number, whereas student-level data require matching identification numbers. In addition, the information in Table II.25 includes students who were in charter schools at some point from 1997 through 2000 and who remain in the database. Thus, the scores for a student may appear in one year and not in another in this presentation (as opposed to the requirement for Tables II.21 through II.23 that students be matched; that is, have scores from one year to the next). These data illustrate differences between whole-campus and matched-student data. The reader will note that the levels of performance are very different. For example, 1999-00 TAAS performance for reading in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students is 56.4 percent passing when all students are included, while an examination at the student level using only matched scores ranges from 64 to 97 percent passing. Clearly, matched student analyses yield a very different view of performance than when examining schools as a whole. Equally clear, these students represent a small portion of the overall student population in charter schools, and their performance cannot be considered outside of the context of the performance of the school in general. Table II.25 Percentage Passing TAAS Subtests over Three Years, Non-Matched Students School Type1997-981998-991999-00ReadMathReadMathReadMath75% Rule----59.3%56.2%56.4%45.9%Open-Enr e" 75%55.5%27.6%78.6%71.7%73.9%61.6%75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%55.5%27.6%77.8%71.0%65.4%54.1%Open-Enr < 75%79.0%70.0%75.8%66.2%74.2%64.2% Examining percentages passing across years within school categories demonstrates that the student populations are not equivalent from year to year. Again, this illustrates the difficulties in making singular statements about charter school effectiveness. TAAS Texas Learning Index As noted in previous sections, the Texas Learning Index (TLI) is a standard score used by to help standardize TAAS difficulty level from year to year. This index is important because TAAS has changed over time. TLI scores are also important because they allow smaller increments of progress to be measured for individual students. A student either passes or does not pass TAAS subtests. By contrast, a TLI score of 30 one year and 40 the next indicates that, although the student is still not passing (TLI 70 is passing), he or she has made progress toward passing. Generally, a student who maintains the same TLI score from one year to the next has made one year of progress. Care must be taken when examining very high TLI scores, as the maximum score can change from year to year. Thus a student could lose TLI points from one year to the next, yet still score at the maximum for each year. In most charter schoolsparticularly those serving large percentages of at-risk studentsthere are relatively few students for whom this is an issue. In Table II.26, TLI change information is presented by school type. For both reading and mathematics, the largest gains were made by students attending charter schools in 1998 and subsequently enrolling in traditional public schools for the next two years. The next largest gains were for students remaining in charter schools for three years and for students transferring to traditional public schools following two years in charter schools. As observed previously in connection with changes in TAAS passing rates, initial transfers to charter schools result in small losses or no change. This information is restricted to students who were in grade 3 through grade 6 in 1997-98 and, subsequently, in grades 5 through 8 in 1999-00. TAAS is not currently given at grade 9. (Changes in TLI scores for students in grade 8 in 1997-98 and grade 10 in 2000 are presented in Table II.27.) Table II.26 TLI Score Change Over Time, by School Type 1997-981998-991999-00ReadingMathematicsAll Charter Schools Combined199819992000Diff*199819992000Diff*CharterCharterCharter81.482.885.74.376.078.381.05.0Charter PublicPublic77.282.783.66.471.475.578.16.7CharterCharterPublic83.986.587.83.979.181.583.74.6Public CharterCharter82.582.583.61.179.077.879.50.5PublicPublicCharter79.379.678.0 -1.374.275.475.10.9Public CharterPublic81.980.882.50.677.976.179.81.9Note: Includes only students in grades 3-6 in 1997-98 and 5-8 in 1999-00. *Difference computes changes in TLI scores from 1998 to 2000 and does not take into account 1999 scores. Table II.27 contains information about TLI scores for tenth-grade students taking the TAAS exit exam in 2000. As before, four classifications of schools are presented. Difference scores are presented for contrast among the school classifications. Students moving from charter schools in grade 8 (1998) to traditional public schools in 2000 made the greatest gains. About 60 percent of these students attended traditional public schools in the intermediate year (1999), during which they were not tested. Students enrolled in charter schools both in 1998 and 2000 had the second highest reading TLI score gains and had the third-greatest mathematics gains (all these students were enrolled in charter schools in grade 9). In contrast, students transitioning from traditional public schools in grade 8 to charter schools in grade 10 gained the least or showed losses. Most of these students (75 percent) attended traditional public schools as ninth graders. For approximately nine percent of students, there is no record of enrollment in either a traditional public or charter school for their ninth-grade year. This is true both for students attending charter or traditional public schools as tenth-graders. This reflects the challenges presented in educating at-risk students, both for traditional public schools and for charter schools. The movement from a traditional public school in 1998 to a charter school in 2000 resulted in no change for reading TLI scores but losses in mathematics scores. Table II.27 TLI Score Change From Grade 8 to Grade 10 Type of SchoolReadingMathematics1997-981999-0019982000Diff19982000DiffCharterCharter82.084.72.774.474.50.1CharterPublic83.588.24.778.579.30.8PublicCharter76.876.8071.570.2 -1.3PublicPublic83.484.20.874.476.42.0Note: Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1996-97 and 1999-00. Tables II.28 and II.29 portray changes in TLI scores for students in grades 3 through 8 over the period of one year1999 to 2000. To help the reader discern the character of the changes more closely, TLI scores are broken out by numeric range. Table II.28 TLI Change Distribution for Reading TLI Scores (1999 to 2000) 1999 TLI RangeCharter/CharterPublic/PublicCharter/PublicPublic/Charter<30 TLI17.814.820.825.530 to <40 TLI12.6--16.24.140 to <50 TLI3.6--10.23.050 to <60 TLI-1.1-0.63.5-1.760 to <70 TLI1.1-5.0-3.4-4.170 to <85 TLI-7.8-9.5-6.4-17.285 and up TLI-5.6-8.2-7.7-10.3Note: Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1996-97 and 1999-00. Table II.29 TLI Change Distribution for Mathematics TLI Scores (1999 to 2000) 1999 TLI RangeCharter/CharterPublic/PublicCharter/PublicPublic/Charter<30 TLI21.018.327.328.230 to <40 TLI9.57.14.72.640 to <50 TLI4.719.77.53.550 to <60 TLI5.41.84.4-0.360 to <70 TLI0.34.74.5-3.670 to <85 TLI-1.7-5.0-1.5-10.685 and up TLI-3.3-1.0-7.1-6.3Note: Students in traditional public schools who attended charter schools some time between 1996-97 and 1999-00. The information in Tables II.28 and II.29 illustrates the impact of attending various types of schoolsand changing schoolson the performance of students over a range of performance levels. For Tables II.28 and II.29 only, students with 1999 TLI scores of less than 30 are included. Although these students showed very large increases, in the opinion of evaluation team, TLI scores below 30 are best considered as non-measurement; therefore, apparent gains are suspect. Conversely, for students (not just those with some charter school experience) with TLI scores above 70, the most common change is a loss. This type of change is a common phenomenon resultingat least in partfrom regression to the mean. This will not be explored in this chapter but is noted to help explain losses for high-performing students, as well as gains for low-performing students. Although no absolute patterns emerge from the data presented in Tables II.28 and II.29, it seems that the initial movement from traditional public to charter schools has the most negative impact on student performance. There appears to be little consistent information that would reveal an advantage for either public/public or charter/charter combinations. Summary Texas charter schools serve higher percentages of low-income and minority students than traditional public schools statewide. Within Texas traditional public school districts, 14 percent of students are African American, whereas this group comprises nearly 39 percent of the charter school student population. The percentage of Hispanic students in charter schools is roughly the same as the state average, and the percentage of White students is less than the state average. Overall, charter schools report seven percent of students in special education and four percent as limited-English proficient. These percentages are lower than the overall state percentages of students in these groups. Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students have higher percentages of minority and economically disadvantaged students than other schools. In addition, charter schools have much greater percentages of beginning teachers and teachers with less overall experience than traditional public schools statewide. The teacher turnover rate in charter schools is 49 percentconsiderably higher than the 15 percent turnover rate reported for traditional public schools statewide. Salaries for administrators and teachers are lower in charter schools than state average salaries; less relative experience among charter school educators accounts for part of the difference. Total operating expenditures per pupil for charter schools are less than the state average for traditional public schools, partly because charter schools serve lower proportions of students identified as having special needs. Persons interested in the performance of charter schools and charter school students should bear in mind the enrollment, staffing, and finance context when making judgments about performance based on comparisons with statewide information. Considered in the aggregate, average TAAS performance is lower among charter schools than the state average for all traditional public schools. TAAS performance by student subgroups also shows charter school performance to be lower than state averages. Individual instances of very high charter school performance exist but are not highlighted when averages are reported. Students in Generation 1 charter schools enrolling primarily at-risk students performed at low levels in 1998 but made strong gains in 1999 and again in 2000. However, despite their gains, performance for these students lags below the state average for all students and below the statewide average for economically disadvantaged students. Performance levels among charter schools serving primarily at-risk students are highly variable, with some schools reporting overall losses and others demonstrating significant gains. In general, if students in charter schools maintain their current rates of progress, they will require several years to reach the state average, assuming no additional gains in the overall state rate of gain. Analyses of individual student performance show mixed results. Although some charter school students exhibit high performance levels as measured by TAAS, percentages of students tested and included in these analyses may bring into question the generalizability of results. Analyses involving transitions from charter to traditional public schools and traditional public to charter schools generally favor traditional public schools. However, remaining in the same school across two or three years clearly enhances student performance. Average attendance rates for charter school students are lower than statewide attendance rates. Dropout rates for both types of charter schools exceed the six percent annual rate set by the state to designate schools as Low-Performing. A large percentage of charter schools received ratings of either Low-Performing or Requiring Peer Review, depending upon the accountability system through which the rating was conferred. Section III: Charter School Director Survey This section is based on a survey of charter school directors, generally defined as the chief operating officer of the school. Directors usually perform the combined duties of superintendents and principals by implementing policies developed by governing boards and by exercising direct control over the schools. The evaluation team developed a questionnaire and mailed a copy to the director of each of the 146 charter schools that began operation before August 2000. The current survey has two sections specifically directed to first-year schools, one section for schools with more than one year experience, and the final ten sections to be completed by all schools. A copy of the survey appears in Appendix C of this report. In total, 130 directors returned the survey, for a response rate of 90 percent. Of these, 12 schools began operation in 1996, 3 in 1997, 45 in 1998, and 70 in 1999. For the purposes of analysis, charter schools are grouped into two categories: schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students (75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75%) and those serving less than 75 percent at-risk students (Open-Enr <75%). Charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students include all 75 Percent Rule charters as well as open-enrollment charter schools that meet this criterion. Of the 130 schools that returned the directors survey, 65 serve primarily at-risk students, and 63 serve fewer of these students. The designation of two charter schools could not be determined at the time of analysis. The schools are also grouped by start-up date: 60 schools were in operation before August 1999, and 70 began operation in the 1999-00 school year. This allows for a comparison of schools in similar stages of development. A complete list of the start-up dates of all charter schools is found in Appendix B. The questionnaire was grouped into five segments that serve as the organizational outline. The first section focuses on reasons for founding charter schools and challenges in opening and operating the schools. Only charter schools that opened during the 1999-00 school year completed this section. The second section addresses the challenges of operating a charter school and was answered only by those schools opened before Fall 1999. The third, fourth, and fifth sections are based on responses from all charter school directors. The third part examines the governance of the schools, their finances, and their support from businesses and the community. The fourth section describes the school personnel, curriculum, and the directors views on the relationship of the charter schools with traditional public school districts. Parents and students are the focus of the fifth segment. Reasons for Founding Schools and Opening Challenges for All First-Year Schools Table III.1 shows the reasons for founding charter schools, with higher average ratings indicating greater importance. As in years past, the majority of charter schools were interested in developing their own educational visions and serving a special student population. However, charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students thought that autonomy in educational programming from local school districts and in personnel matters was more important than did the schools serving primarily at-risk students. Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students comparatively gave higher importance for public funding and grants. Table III.1 Comparing Reasons for Founding Charter Schools (Means) Reasons for Founding Charter Schools75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=128)Realize an educational vision2.92.92.9Serve a special student population2.62.42.5Involve parents2.32.62.4Gain autonomy in educational program2.02.42.2Attract more students2.02.42.2Seek public funding2.31.82.1Gain autonomy to develop non-traditional community relationships2.02.32.1Seek grants2.31.72.1Gain autonomy from local school district1.52.11.8Gain autonomy in personnel matters1.41.91.6Gain autonomy in fiscal management1.61.61.6Gain autonomy from state laws and regulations1.41.71.5Note: Items rated on a three-point scale: 1 = limited importance or not important, 2 = secondary importance, 3 = primary importance. In regard to the origin of the charter schools, 53 percent of the directors responded that an individual provided the impetus for the founding of the school. Almost 43 percent indicated that the schools were founded through the efforts of a group. This is a change from prior years when an individual was key for 29 percent of the new schools and 63 percent attributed the founding to a group. The evaluation team was also interested in identifying obstacles sponsors faced in establishing charter schools. Table III.2 shows directors responses to questions about opening challenges. Lack of startup and operating funds lead the list of obstacles for all schools, followed by lack of planning time. Lack of adequate facilities, various regulations, and hiring teachers are moderate barriers. The least difficult challenges are opposition from local boards, teacher associations, the community, or local conflicts. Table III.2 Challenges Opening Charter Schools (Means) Challenges Opening Charter Schools75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=128)Lack of startup funds2.72.42.6Inadequate operating funds2.22.42.3Lack of planning time2.32.02.1Inadequate facilities1.62.11.8TEA regulations1.81.61.7State Board of Education approval process1.81.51.7Hiring teaching staff1.61.91.7Federal education regulations1.71.61.7State/federal health and safety regulations1.71.41.6Local board opposition1.21.41.3Teacher association resistance1.21.21.2Internal conflicts1.21.11.2Community opposition1.21.11.2Note: Items rated on a three-point scale: 1 = not at all difficult, 2 = difficult, 3 = very difficult There are some differences between charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students. Although charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students had more difficulty with adequate startup funds and planning time, the schools serving less at-risk students had greater difficulty with inadequate operating funds and facilities. Challenges of Operating Charter Schools For Second Year and Older Schools The 60 charter schools that started before 1999 face challenges that are different from those reported on in the previous section for first-year schools. The results are depicted in Table III.3, with higher average scores indicating more difficult tasks. Table III.3 Challenges for Second Year and Older Schools (Means) Challenges for Second Year and Older Schools75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=24)Open-Enr < 75% (N=36)All Charter Schools (N=60)Involving parents1.91.91.9Securing adequate funding1.91.81.9Realizing the original vision of the school1.81.81.8Attracting and retaining teachers and staff1.51.61.6Attracting students1.41.31.4Note: Items rated one a three-point scale: 1 = easier to handle, 2 = about the same, 3 = more difficult. In comparing the first year of operation with subsequent years, involving parents has become the greatest challenge. Securing adequate funding has become the second most difficult challenge. Realizing the original vision and attracting and retaining teachers and staff have also become more difficult. The difference between charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students is almost nonexistent in this years results, contrary to prior years. Table III.4 shows directors responses to questions about operating challenges. The rate of difficulty is on a four-point scale, where higher means indicate more difficult tasks. Table III.4 Challenges in Operation (Means) Challenges in Operation75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=128)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)Inadequate facilities2.22.32.22.3TEA regulations2.12.32.22.5Inadequate operating funds1.92.42.22.6Federal education regulations1.92.32.12.3Lack of planning time1.92.02.02.2Health and safety regulations1.82.12.01.9Hiring teaching staff2.01.81.91.7Repayment of state aid overpayment1.51.91.82.5Internal conflicts1.51.81.71.6Teacher association resistance1.51.71.61.5Local board opposition1.41.71.61.3Community opposition1.41.51.51.2Note: Items rated on a four-point scale: 1 = easier, 2 = about the same, 3 = difficult, 4 = very difficult. The results from 1998-99 scores were included in Table III.4 because there appear to be changes in the opinions of the directors in the charter school evaluations of 1998-99 and 1999-00. Inadequate facilities are viewed as the most difficult operational challenge in 1999-00, whereas in 1998-99, inadequate operating funds were the most difficult. Of the top four items, the level of difficulty seems to have decreased. The number two response in 1998-99, repayment of state aid, has dropped seven-tenths of a point to eighth place. There were slight increases, though, in resistance and opposition from various entities, internal conflicts, the hiring of teaching staff, and dealing with health and safety regulations. The difference between charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students in 1999-00 would indicate that overall the directors of schools serving primarily at-risk students have less difficulty with these tasks than directors at the schools serving less at-risk students, except for hiring teaching staff. This was unchanged from the 1998-99 survey. There were four additional comments provided by the directors as to specific difficulties. They identified the following as very difficult: PEIMS software, building codes and permits, orienting new parents to the vision of the school, and paperwork. Governance, Finance, and Support for All Charter Schools Governance Each charter school is required to establish a governing board, but the number of members, composition, purpose, and method of selection are within the discretion of the charter school. Table III.5 summarizes characteristics of charter schools governing boards. Table III.5 Board Composition (Means) Board Composition 75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=128)Total board members6.07.06.4Men3.53.33.4Parent members0.61.61.1Teachers0.50.40.4African Americans2.11.92.0Hispanics0.71.81.2Asian Americans0.30.10.2Board term of office (years)3.12.62.8 The average number of board members in Texas traditional public school districts is seven, very similar to the situation in charter schools (6.4 members). The number of school board members ranges from 3 (25 schools or 20 percent) to 24 (one school). The school boards for charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students are slightly larger than the school boards of charter schools enrolling primarily at-risk students. The type of school or the manner in which it was founded often determines board membership. The schools associated with county criminal justice programs tended to have judges on the board. Also, founding members, or their representatives, were often listed as board members. Table III.5 would seem to indicate a high degree of racial and ethnic diversity among governing board members. Closer examination, however, shows that many of the schools have one-race or predominantly one-race school boards. Of the 130 schools, 53 have one-race boards, 30 have all White boards, 18 have all African American boards, and 5 have all Hispanic boards. Compared to the 1998-99 survey, the total number of board members decreased from an average of 8.4 to 6.4, the number of male board members decreased from 4.5 to 3.4, and the term of office increased from 2.5 to 2.8 years. As seen in Table III.6, regardless of the type of school, the vast majority of charter school boards have adopted by-laws, approved operating policies, and approved the budget. Table III.6 Board Responsibilities Board ResponsibilitiesAffirmative ResponsesNumberPercentApprove budget12599.2%Adopt by-laws12095.2%Approve operating policies11592.7% Finances All charter schools answered a series of questions related to sources of revenue for their budget. Charter school directors provided a breakdown of funding sources, noting the percentage of the total budget for each source. The results appear in Table III.7. Startup funds for the 62 schools opening in August 1999 who answered the question ranged from zero to $4,162,000. The mean was $191,858, but 27 schools, or 43.5 percent, reported receiving $30,000, the most frequent response. The higher startup amounts reflected private capital campaigns designed to buy the building in addition to other startup funds. Table III.7 Sources of School Revenue, Mean Percent of Total Budget Source of Revenue75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=128)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)State government78.4%85.6%81.8%77.9%Federal government18.1%10.3%14.4%13.5%Private grants1.4%3.6%2.5%3.6%Other2.9%1.6%2.4%2.3%Parent donations0.9%1.3%1.1%0.8%Chartering organization1.3%0.6%1.0%0.4% Federal and state dollars as a source of revenue have increased slightly from the 1998-99 survey, although the ratios within the budgets have remained fairly constant. Private grants appear to have decreased some, but parent donations and funds from the chartering organization have increased slightly. Other included individual or community business contributions, as well as loans and fundraising efforts. As seen in Table III.8, there appears to be little difference between the schools that opened before August 1999 and the newer schools that opened after that date. Table III.8 Sources of School Revenue as a Mean Percent, Comparing Charter Schools Opened before and after August 1999 Source of RevenueCharter Schools Opened before 8/99 (N=60)Charter Schools Opened after 8/99 (N=70)State government81.8%82.8%Federal government13.5%15.3%Other3.5%1.6%Private grants2.5%2.4%Parent donations1.5%0.7%Chartering organization1.5%0.5% Thirty-seven schools listed in-kind support, ranging from services, such as CPA, legal, management and training, to more tangible items such as office equipment and the facility. Also related to funding issues is the number of schools that receive Title I, special education, and limited-English proficiency (LEP) funds. Table III.9 and III.10 provide the data. Table III.9 Title I, Special Education, and LEP Revenue, as a Percentage of Affirmative Answers Revenue Received75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=128)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)Title I 60.9%77.4%68.8%75.8%Special education60.9%74.1%66.9%64.5%LEP 11.1%26.3%18.0%18.8% From 1998-99 to 1999-00, the number of schools receiving Title I and LEP funds decreased, while those receiving special education funds increased. Of the 15 comments after the Title I question, seven expressed a difficulty with the application process either due to lack of information or staff time. A comparatively lower percentage of schools serving primarily at-risk students receive these types of funds than charter schools serving less at-risk students. Table III.10 shows a difference in how the newer charter schools compare with the more experienced schools. More experienced schools have a higher percentage of affirmative responses when asked about receiving Title I, special education, or LEP funds. Table III.10 Special Services Revenue as a Percentage of Affirmative Answers, Comparing Charter Schools Opened before and after August 1999 Revenue Charter Schools Opened before 8/99 Charter Schools Opened after 8/99 Receive Title I funds84.7%55.1%Receive special education funds82.5%53.7%Percent of schools receiving special education funding with special needs students 83.9%73.5%Receive LEP funds27.8%10.3%Percent of schools receiving LEP funds with LEP students 60.0%33.3% Newer schools not only receive special services funds at a lower rate than the older schools, but also have a greater unmet need. Of the newer schools, 36 (or 73.5 percent) with special needs students received special education funding compared to 47 (or 83.9 percent) of older charter schools. Likewise, 21 newer charter schools have LEP students, but only 7 (33.3 percent) receive LEP funds as compared to 15 (60.0 percent) of the 25 older charter schools. Community Support Table III.11 shows the distribution of types of support from the community. In general, support from businesses and the community has been substantial for charter schools. The most common form of support overall was the donation of equipment. The charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students had higher levels of support than the schools serving primarily at-risk students in the four most prevalent types of support, especially in equipment donations. Mentoring, on the other hand, is more common in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, as are tutoring and job shadowing. Table III.11 Support from Businesses and the Community, by Number of Charter Schools Responding Affirmatively Type of Support75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=130)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentEquipment donations2843.1%3860.3%6751.5%Field trips2640.0%3250.8%5945.4%Donations of time2741.5%2844.4%5542.3%Monetary donations2335.4%2539.7%5038.5%Mentoring2233.8%1219.0%3426.2%Tutoring1624.6%1422.2%3023.1%Job shadowing812.3%711.1%1511.5% Another form of community support comes through students parents. Table III.12 indicates that fundraising is the most prevalent type of parent involvement in the charter schools. It also shows that parents of students at charter schools serving fewer than 75 percent at-risk students have a higher level of participation than parents at schools serving primarily at-risk students, especially in the fundraising area. Parent tutoring is also much more prevalent in charter schools serving fewer at-risk students. Table III.12 Support from Parents, by Number of Schools Responding Affirmatively Type of Support 75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=130)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentFundraising2132.3%5181.0%7356.2%Community projects2132.3%2742.9%4937.7%Presentations1523.1%2742.9%4333.1%Tutoring1015.4%3047.6%4131.5%Teaching assistants1015.4%2539.7%3526.9%Mentoring1320.0%2031.7%3325.4%Maintenance1015.4%2133.3%3123.9%Other69.2%57.9%118.5% Organizational Support Directors were asked to report whether they received support in school operation from various organizations. Table III.13 shows the organizations that provided support. Table III.13 Support From Educational Organizations, by Number of Schools Organization75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentRegional education service center5990.8%5993.7%11991.5%6395.5%Charter School Resource Ctr5990.8%5892.1%11991.5%6192.4%5889.2%5993.7%11991.5%6395.5%College or university2335.4%2234.9%4635.4%3248.5%School district2233.8%1117.5%3426.2%2740.9% A similar number of charter schools in 1999-00 reported that they received support from the Charter School Resource Center, , and regional education service centers. Charter schools are less likely to report support from colleges and universities and local school districts, and, proportionally, the number reporting support from these entities decreased substantially for the 1999-00 set of schools. When comparing charter schools serving varying numbers of at-risk students, it is noteworthy that there is little difference except that twice as many charter schools serving primarily at-risk students received assistance from the local school district than schools serving less at-risk students. A great number of additional resources were listed by 25 of the schools. They included local libraries, local civic clubs, community businesses, non-profit organizations, and foundations. A few of the charter schools connected to a residential treatment center mentioned counseling and medical service providers. Three schools named other charter schools as having offered assistance. School Personnel, Curriculum, and Relationships with Traditional Public School Districts Teachers As seen in Table III.14, the number of teachers in charter schools ranged from 1 to 85, with a mean of 12.3 teachers. The number of teachers with college degrees ranged from 1 to 85, but the mean was 10.9 teachers with degrees. Of those who started in Fall 1999, the average number of teachers who returned for the 2000-01 school year was 8.8, for a turnover rate of 30 percent. That rate is an improvement over last years rate of 35 percent, although it is still higher than the state average for traditional public school teachers of 15 percent. Of the 94 schools that reported they had teachers who left, 66 schools said the teachers left to teach in other traditional public or private schools. Of those teachers who left, almost twice as many left voluntarily as were terminated. Table III. 14 Number of Teachers Teachers75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=130)Number of teachers11.813.212.3College degreed10.211.910.9Teachers remained8.39.68.8Left for other teaching position1.51.81.7 Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students show slightly lower numbers of teachers, and correspondingly, fewer teachers with college degrees and fewer who remained to teach from one year to the next. Directors Charter school directors were asked several questions concerning their qualifications. Twenty-three, or 18.3 percent, reported that mid-management certification was required for their job. Twenty-two of the directors regularly teach in their charter schools, and 58 considered themselves the CEO of the school. Eighty-eight directors had taught in traditional public schools for between 1 and 32 years before coming to the charter school, and 55 had taught in private schools. As for prior administrative experience, 78 directors had been an administrator in a traditional public school and 44 in a private school before joining the charter school. The directors are a highly educated group. Of the directors who answered the question, most hold degrees beyond the baccalaureate. Fifty percent hold a Masters degree, with 14 of those in education. There were 18 directors with doctorates and 2 with law degrees. Curriculum Charter school directors were asked about the curricula and teaching practices employed in their schools. As seen in Table III.15, a great majority of the directors report the use of curriculum materials adopted by the state in their charter schools. A very large percentage of the schools, 77 percent, also augment that curriculum with other educational programs. Table III.15 Use of State-Adopted Curriculum 75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=130)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentUse state-adopted Texas curriculum6198.4%5693.3%11996.0%Use other curriculum4775.8%4679.3%9477.0% Traditional public schools and charter schools have the same requirements for meeting the TEKS, usually through standard curricula. Although much of the additional curricula offered by the charter schools may be different than that offered in local traditional public school districts, for the most part, the practices employed by the charter schools exist in some of the state's traditional public schools. For example, five charter schools indicated that they use Direct Instruction and/or Scientific Research Associates (SRA) materials. Direct Instruction is widely used in Houston ISD, and SRA is common across the state. Saxon Math, used by three charter schools, has been in place in the Arlington ISD and others for many years. Montessori methods found in two charter schools are another example of a program utilized by districts such as Fort Worth ISD. Charter schools may offer curricula choices not available locally, but the curriculum is likely to exist elsewhere in the state. The directors were also asked about practices in their schools. Comparing charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students emphasizes that the different student populations may respond better to different frameworks in their schools. Table III.16 lists some of the options. Because the directors provided responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceeds the number of schools. There is little difference between schools in the most prevalent practices of individualized learning, the mainstreaming of students, the use of technology for learning, or multi-age grouping, among others. However, interdisciplinary teaching is more common in charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students, while a nontraditional daily schedule is used more frequently in schools serving primarily at-risk students. Table III.16 Educational Practices Educational Practices75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools (N=130)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentMainstreaming students5787.7%5485.7%11386.9%Use of technology for learning5686.2%4977.8%10782.3%Individualized learning5280.0%5282.5%10681.5%Performance-based assessments4772.3%3758.7%8464.6%Multi-age grouping4569.2%3860.3%8464.6%Alternative assessments3350.8%3961.9%7255.4%Site-based decision making3249.2%2946.0%6348.5%Interdisciplinary teaching2640.0%3555.6%6348.5%Nontraditional daily schedule3756.9%2539.7%6247.7%Project-based learning2538.5%3149.2%5743.8%Experiential learning2132.3%2946.0%5139.2%Graduation/learning standards3147.7%1219.0%4333.1%After-school scheduling1726.2%1828.6%3627.7%Community service requirements1421.5%1523.8%2922.3%Use of simulations1218.5%1727.0%2922.3%Nontraditional weekly schedule69.2%1117.5%1713.1%Nontraditional yearly schedule710.8%812.7%1612.3% The evaluation team also compared the practices of charter schools serving primarily at-risk students from 1998-99 to 1999-00. Mainstreaming students and the use of technology for learning continue to rise, while after-school scheduling and nontraditional weekly and yearly schedules follow a declining trend. Discipline Directors responses in Table III.17 show that approximately 15 percent of administrators time is spent on student discipline, but only about 13 percent of teachers time is spent that way. Discipline is more of a problem in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, but overall, directors did not view discipline problems as being particularly serious. In fact, in comparison to last year, there has been a decrease in the amount of time spent on discipline, and the seriousness of the problem has declined. Table III.17 Student Discipline Characteristics Discipline Characteristic75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)Administrator time spent on discipline17.5%12.8%15.1%22.2%Teacher time spent on discipline (mean)12.8%12.9%12.7%17.5%Discipline not very serious60.0%85.5%72.1%60.6%Discipline very serious 3.1%1.6%2.3%3.0%Discipline problems disrupt classes a great deal4.8%5.0%4.8%10.6%Discipline problems interfere with the educational process3.1%1.6%2.3%4.5% It should be recognized, and three directors mentioned, that some charter schools have a mission statement to offer an education to those students having discipline problems. One director wrote, This school is designed to serve very serious disciplinary problem students. Discipline problems/cases are not a problem here. Table III.18 lists the ratio of the number of disciplinary incidents by type of school reported in the four charter school evaluations done thus far. Ratios are used to control for the increasing number of charter schools each year. Table III.18 Disciplinary Incident Ratio, by School Year Type of Incident1st Year 1996-97 Total (N=16)2nd Year 1997-98 Total (N=19)3rd Year 1998-99 Total (N=66)4th Year 1999-00 Total (N=128)75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=10)Open-Enr < 75% (N=6)75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=11)Open-Enr < 75% (N=8)75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=32)Open-Enr < 75% (N=34)75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)Assault  0 0 0.8 0.3 7.5 0.7 2.0 0.8Drugs 11.20.3 3.7 0.1 9.6 1.3 1.7 1.0Knives 0.30.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1Alcohol 2.20.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1Guns 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1Note: Disciplinary incident ratio calculated by dividing number of incidents by number of schools in the at-risk category for each school year. Overall, disciplinary incidents in charter schools most commonly involve drugs. Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students fluctuated in the number of drug-related incidents, with the 1999-00 school year having fewer incidents than the previous year. Disciplinary incidents involving assaults increased for three years then decreased in the fourth year for charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, while charter schools serving less at-risk students had an increase in assault incidents each year. Drug and assault incidents were higher in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students than in those serving less at-risk students. Disciplinary incidents involving knives, alcohol, and guns have remained relatively stable over the four-year period. Relationship with Traditional Public School Districts Directors were asked to provide their perspectives regarding the impact of charter schools on local school districts. Only 30 of the 130 directors, or 23.1 percent, indicated that they were aware of changes in the districts from which their students had been drawn. That included 11 charter schools serving primarily at-risk students and 18 schools serving less at-risk students. The single greatest response was that charter school directors feel that the relationship with the local school district is neutral, which is a change from the 1998-99 survey. The 1999-00 evaluation also shows that there are fewer extremes than in 1998-99. The percentages of hostile relationships and cooperative relationships have decreased. Table III.19 provides the number of responses and percentages. Table III.19 Relationship of Charter School with Local School Districts Relationship 75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentHostile23.1%34.8%53.8%710.6%Neutral3046.2% 2234.9%5240.0%1624.2%Somewhat cooperative1116.9%2031.7%3224.6%1725.8%Cooperative2132.3%1727.0%3930.0%2639.4%No response11.5%11.6%21.5%00% The 32 directors open-ended comments provided more insight into this question, with the individual perspective varying greatly with the individual situation. The most frequent response (7 directors) was that new programs started in the districts mimicked the charter school programs. Two new schools were built, there were two mentions that the district believed charter schools offer educational options to students, and two districts have shown an interest in opening more charter schools in the district. Four described less overcrowding and less violence in the local traditional public schools. Eight other directors characterized the local district as having decreased enrollments, decreased funding, and dumping discipline students. Five charter schools have increased communication, referrals, and transfers, but three have worsened relationships. Parents and Students Parents As presented in Table III.20, charter school directors identified the types of parental participation practices in their schools. Comments were made that custodial settings or residential treatment centers were not as compatible with traditional volunteer activities is other schools. Because directors reported responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceeds the number of schools. There are differences between schools serving varying numbers of at-risk students, and there has been some change from the previous year. Table III.20 Parent Participation in Charter Schools Parent Participation 75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentParent-teacher meetings4471.0%5384.1%9877.2%5177.3%Volunteer opportunities3351.6%5993.7%9372.1%5583.3%Home-school communication4164.1%4572.6%8768.0%4568.3%Referrals to agencies3250.0%4267.7%7558.6%4466.7%Regular parent meetings 3046.9%4165.1%7356.6%4466.7%Parents on committees2234.9%3354.1%5644.4%3553.0%Require parents sign homework1727.4%3353.2%5039.7%2943.9%Workshops for parents2032.3%2743.5%4736.2%2436.4%Written contract for involvement1930.2%2438.7%4333.9%3756.1%At-home activities to support school objectives812.9 %2033.3%2822.6%1725.8%Parents as instructors 812.3%1220.0%2016.3%1421.2%Require parents work at school 711.3%1321.3%2016.0%1421.2% Volunteer opportunities for parents are not as widely available proportionally in 1999-00 where the most prevalent practice is now parentteacher meetings. Overall, every parent participation practice has decreased since 1998-99 in varying degrees, with the signing of a written contract for parent involvement declining the most. Also, charter schools serving primarily at-risk students consistently register lower numbers of parent participation practices than schools serving less at-risk students. The greatest variation between these schools was in the area of providing volunteer opportunities for parents. Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students were 42 percentage points lower than schools serving less at-risk students and had dropped over 26 percentage points from their 1998-99 rate (78.1 percent). Students As seen in Table III.21, directors reported that more than three out of four eligible students returned for the 2000 school year, with less than four percent of those returning being retained in grade. Although there is some difference between charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students in the 1999-00 survey, of more interest is the change in all the charter schools from 1998-99 to 1999-00. Table III.21 Characteristics of Student Population and Attendance Patterns Student Population Characteristics75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)Percent of eligible students returning (average)73%80%77%65%Percent of students retained in grade (average)5%2%3%10%Had a waiting list in previous school year66%63%63%50%Have a waiting list in current school year45%66%54%64%Have higher student numbers in current year77%67%72%66%Have added grade level in current year45%50%48%37% In 1999-00, there are more schools with waiting lists, although not for the the current year. However, in the current year there is a higher return rate of eligible students, a higher enrollment number, and almost half of the schools have added a grade level. Also, there has been a decrease in the percent of students retained in grade. The number of students who left this sample of charter schools during the 1999-00 school year totaled more than 11,000. It should be noted that three schools account for 4,636, or almost 40 percent, of the total; two of these schools are juvenile justice charter schools serving students for a limited amount of time. Table III.22 lists a variety of reasons students are leaving their schools and their frequency. Table III.22 Reason for Student Leaving Charter School, Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Reason for Leaving Charter School75% Rule and Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentTotal number of students who left8,1162,93611,0558,869Moved82410.2%90230.7%1,72615.6%1,33715.1%Student completed diploma or GED1,16714.4%37312.7%1,54314.0%98311.1%Transportation problems5566.9%2588.8%8147.4%1601.8%Disciplinary problems4215.2%2859.7%7066.4% 4725.3%Student got a job3234.0%1164.0%4394.0%4535.1%School did not meet academic expectations1181.5%1796.1%2972.7%1992.2%Academic problems760.9%983.3%1741.6%3554.0%Medical reasons1501.8%220.7%1721.6%941.1%Other4,48155.2%70323.9%5,18446.9%4,81654.3% There is moderate variation between charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students and between 1998-99 and 1999-00 results. Because of the special missions of a few of the charter schools, students completing studies for a diploma or a GED appear very high as does the other category. The other category is overwhelmingly dominated by two large juvenile justice charter schools that routinely return the students to their traditional public school after their incarceration period is over. The written other responses also indicated that in addition to the listed options, students left to be home schooled, to return to other local schools, or were incarcerated. A space was provided for comments where additional reasons for leaving were listed. Attendance problems were the most frequent answer, but wanting school experiences like sports and proms were mentioned along with changes in family situation, dissatisfaction with the school, and transferring or dropping out. The survey instrument did not provide insight into the high number of students who have moved. Student Recruitment Student recruitment is an integral part of maintaining enrollment in charter schools, except for those schools that provide specialized services for incarceration or treatment programs. Charter schools use a variety of recruitment techniques, as displayed in Table III.23. Because directors responded in multiple categories, the number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Table III.23 Student Recruitment Techniques, by Number of Charter Schools Responding Affirmatively Student Recruitment Technique 75% Rule & Open-Enr e" 75% (N=65)Open-Enr < 75% (N=63)All Charter Schools 1999-00 (N=130)All Charter Schools 1998-99 (N=66)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentWord-of-mouth5483.1%5993.7%11588.5%5787.7%Flyers3553.8%4165.1%7860.0%3858.5%Parent meetings3350.8%3860.3%7154.6%3655.4%Newspaper2030.8%3555.6%5643.1%3249.2%Radio1827.7%1828.6%3829.2%1624.6%Other 2132.3%1523.8%3627.7%1726.2%Posters1116.9%2336.5%3426.2%1421.5% Word-of-mouth proved to be the leading recruitment technique for all charter schools, a fact that has not changed from last year. Overall, charter schools serving fewer at-risk students use these recruitment methods more than schools serving primarily at-risk students, with only radio being used equally. In addition, many use TV stories or ads, booths in malls or at fairs, or regular visits with potential referral sources, such as school counselors. Summary Over the past four years of charter schools in Texas, the opinions of directors of charter schools have indicated modest but predictable change. Vast differences still exist among the schools, and with the large increase in the number of schools, those differences are sometimes striking. Charter schools range from very small, less than 100-student facilities for very young children to criminal justice programs with over 2,000 junior high and high school students (where all students are wards of the state and will leave after 90 days). A third distinct set is the charter school associated with a residential treatment center where short-term educational opportunities are available between periods in a local traditional public school. Charter schools have a variety of target populations, locales, curricula, resources, and goals and objectives. The 1999-00 survey included responses from 130 school directors, whereas the 1998-99 had 66 directors, and the prior two reported results from less than 20. Over the past three evaluations, the primary reasons for founding charter schools changed from a dual emphasis on developing their own educational vision and gaining autonomy to a higher priority on developing the schools own educational vision, with serving a special population a close second. This was followed by a priority of involving parents. In the 1999-00 survey, the foundations have stayed the same, but as many of the schools gain experience, improvement in facilities, dealing with regulations, and funding options have become more important. Startup funding was higher in 1999-00 than in past years, but the most common startup amount is still about $30,000. Funding problems, both startup and operational, continue to lead the list of obstacles to starting charter schools. Funding sources have stayed fairly constant, but the state proportion has increased to over 81 percent of the total budget. The greatest challenge to more experienced schools is involving parents, closely followed by securing adequate funding, although less problematic for more experienced schools than for those in the first year of operation. With the increase in the number of charter schools in the state, there appears to be a continuing decrease in the percentage of those receiving Title I funds, down to a current level of about 69 percent. Over 35 percent of the responding schools had limited-English proficiency students, but less than half of those are receiving federal funds to support these students. Each charter school is required to establish a governing board, but the composition continues to vary in both size and racial/ethnic makeup that shows close association to the specific school characteristics. Charter schools maintain strong support from the community and business partnerships, with equipment donations leading the list of activities. , regional education resource centers, and the Charter School Resource Center are sources of support for over 90 percent of the schools, but schools are increasingly receiving help from other charter schools as well. Forty percent of charter school directors indicated that the relationship with the local school district is neutral, which overall, was a slight shift from a more cooperative relationship last year. Charter school directors are experienced educators with many years of teaching and administrative experience. In addition, over 16 percent have doctorate degrees. Teacher turnover (30 percent), although higher than traditional public schools, has dropped compared to past years evaluations. The teaching staff are highly educated, with almost 90 percent having a college degree. In addition to the state-adopted curriculum materials, the vast majority of schools also use other curriculum models. This has not changed over the four evaluation years. Educational practices have changed somewhat over this time period. Mainstreaming students, the use of technology, and individualized learning has increased in use, while nontraditional or after-school scheduling practices have decreased. Due to the broad needs of students in charter schools, there is considerable variation in student discipline and student attrition. Many of the responses were as expected, but overall, the directors consider discipline problems as not very serious. Over 77 percent of eligible charter school students returned for the 2000 school year, an increase from last year. Although the number of students leaving charter schools still seems high, it includes those students who have passed the GED plus other students in short-term programs. Moving was still the most common reason for non-juvenile justice system or residential treatment students not returning to charter schools. Involvement of parents is identified as a major priority but is also found to be a problem area. Involvement of parents in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students is much lower than parents at schools serving less at-risk students. This may be related to the special programs offered, which are different than the traditional public schools. Overall, communication between the charter school and the family is common, with high percentages of parent-teacher meetings and notices going from the schools to students homes. Overall, every parent participation practice has decreased compared to last years numbers in varying degrees, although fundraising is still the activity with the greatest parental participation. This has been consistent through the four years of evaluation. As the number of charter schools and the years of experience of charter schools increase, the range of educational configurations covered has escalated. There is no one ideal charter school but a multitude of options. As one director wrote, Most charter schools are someones dream. Whatever form the charter school has taken, the primary goal still seems to be the education of students. Section IV: Effects of Charter Schools on Traditional Public School Districts Survey of Traditional Public School Districts Development of the Survey Instrument Each year, the evaluation team surveys traditional public school districts about effects of charter schools on their enrollment, operations, finances, policies and programs, and personnel. During the 1996(97 and 1997(98 school years, the evaluation team surveyed the 43 districts potentially affected by the 19 original charter schools, either by mail or by telephone, with a set of open-ended questions. Beginning with the 1998(99 survey, however, the evaluation team decided to use a survey instrument with forced-choice rather than open-ended items. The revised questionnaire included themes drawn from the first two years survey results and from a review of the charter school literature. A copy of the questionnaire used for the 1999(00 survey of traditional public school districts appears in Appendix C of this report. Determination of Survey Sample Charter applicants are required to contact traditional public school districts from which their proposed school may draw its students to inquire about the charter schools potential effects on the district. This is called the Statement of Impact. As part of this process, charter applicants submit names of potentially affected districts to the Charter Schools Division of the (). After charters are awarded, uses this information to prepare a master list of districts that may lose students to, or otherwise be affected by, charter schools in their areas. At the time this studys sample was drawn (April 2000), the list contained 260 Texas traditional public school districts. Of those, 58 districts contained one or more charter schools within district boundaries. The charter school effects survey included all 260 districts potentially affected by charter schools. Survey Procedure In April 2000, the evaluation team prepared survey packets and mailed them to superintendents in the districts potentially affected by charter schools. Each packet contained cover letters from the Texas Center for Educational Research and Commissioner of Education Jim Nelson explaining the purpose of the survey and urging participation. Each packet also contained a questionnaire and a return envelope. As follow-up, non-respondents in districts with charter schools within district boundaries were contacted by mail, fax, or telephone in June 2000. Districts Responding to the Survey Superintendents or their designees in 154 districts completed and returned questionnaires, for a response rate of 57 percent. Tables IV.1 through IV.4 present characteristics of these districts in terms of their relationships to charter schools in their areas. As shown in Table IV.1, respondents districts are fairly evenly split over size categories. Although small districts vastly outnumber mid-size and large districts in Texas, the majority of charter schools are located in or near urban areas. Table IV.1 Districts Responding to Survey, by Size District SizeNumber of DistrictsPercent of RespondentsSmall (3,000 students or fewer)5032.5%Mid-size (3,000 to 10,000 students)5535.7%Large (more than 10,000 students)4931.8%Total154 Table IV.2 presents a breakdown of respondents by education service center (ESC) region. ESCs with the largest number of responding districts are in regions 4, 7, and 11. The proportion of responses from the 20 ESC regions corresponds roughly with the location and concentration of charter schools across Texas. Table IV.2 Districts Responding to Survey, by ESC Region ESC RegionLocationNumber of DistrictsPercent of RespondentsRegion 1Edinburg106.5%Region 2Corpus Christi63.9%Region 3Victoria0--Region 4Houston3120.1%Region 5Beaumont21.3%Region 6Huntsville42.6%Region 7Kilgore2013.0%Region 8Mt. Pleasant10.6%Region 9Wichita Falls74.5%Region 10Richardson159.7%Region 11Ft. Worth1912.3%Region 12Waco85.2%Region 13Austin127.8%Region 14Abilene10.6%Region 15San Angelo0--Region 16Amarillo42.6%Region 17Lubbock10.6%Region 18Midland10.6%Region 19El Paso10.6%Region 20San Antonio117.1%Total154 Respondents districts have varying numbers of charter schools within and near their boundaries. As indicated in Table IV.3, some districts have more than ten charter schools in their areaeither within their boundaries or near enough that charter schools may draw from their student population. All 154 responding districts have at least one charter school within or near their boundaries: 50 have at least one charter school located within their boundaries, and 129 have at least one charter school nearby. These numbers total more than 154 because several districts have charter schools both within and near their boundaries. Table IV.3 Number of Charter Schools Within or Near District Boundaries, by Districts Responding to Survey (N=154) Number of Charter Schools within or near a Districts BoundariesNumber and Percent of Districts with Charter Schools within or near District Boundaries178 (50.6%)222 (14.3%)3(532 (20.8%)6(1013 (8.4%)More than 10* 9 (5.8%)* One district has 37 charter schools within or near the district. Similarly, responding districts differ in the numbers of charter schools serving high percentages of at-risk students within their boundaries or near enough that their students may be drawn by these schools. As indicated in Table IV.4, districts may have from zero to sixteen charter schools serving varying percentages of at-risk students within or near their boundaries. Responding districts are more likely to have charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students in their areas (122 districts) than charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students (58 districts) or 75 Percent Rule charter schools (56 districts). Fewer than 20 percent of responding districts (19%) have more than two charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students within or near their boundaries, whereas even fewer districts have more than two 75 Percent Rule charter schools (5.8%) or schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students (10.3%) within or near their boundaries. Table IV.4 Charter Schools within or near District Boundaries of Survey Respondents, by Percentage of At-Risk Student Population Served (N=154) Number of Charter Schools within or near District s Boundaries75% RuleOpen-Enr e" 75%Open-Enr < 75%None98 (63.6%)96 (62.3%)32 (20.8%)136 (23.4%)30 (19.5%)73 (47.4%)211 (7.1%)12 (7.8%)20 (13.0%)3(57 (4.5%)15 (9.7%)19 (12.3%)6(16*2 (1.3%)1 (0.6%)10 (6.5%)*The responding district with the greatest number of 75 Percent Rule charter schools in the area has eight. The responding district with the greatest number of charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students in the area has seven. The responding district with the greatest number of charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students in the area has 16. Findings from Survey of Charter School Effects Survey Response Presentation In the survey, districts reported whether one or more charter schools had opened in or near their districts. As described in the preceding section, representatives from 154 districts responded to the survey. Although charter school applicants identified these districts as being potentially affected, only two-thirds of respondents (105) indicated that schools had opened in their area. This was expected because some charter schoolseven if open and operatingmay have submitted names of districts so far from their boundaries that district respondents may not have been aware of their presence. Throughout the remainder of this section, a series of tables present information about survey responses. Some tables include responses from all survey respondents, whereas several present data for a sub-sample of the total respondents in addition to, or instead of, results for all 154 districts. For example, Table IV.5 portrays districts responses to the presence of charter schools and includes data from the 154 districts comprising the total sample and data from a sub-sample of 105 respondents who indicated that one or more charter schools are in or near their districts. Other tables portray results from various sub-samples of responses, depending on the subject matter under consideration. The reader should also note that, in several tables, categories are not mutually exclusive; thus, a calculation of row and/or column totals would yield meaningless results. District Issues Related to Charter Schools Respondents were given a list of possible events related to charter schools and asked to indicate whether any had occurred in their district. Table IV.5 shows the proportion of respondents indicating that these events had taken place. Comparisons show that most events occurred more frequently in districts where one or more charter schools have already opened. Table IV.5 Districts Responses to the Presence of Charter Schools Total Respondents (N=154)Respondents near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)NumberPercentNumberPercentDistrict administrators met to discuss issues concerning charter schools4730.5%4643.8%Charter school issues included in the districts board agenda3321.4%2927.6%Charter schools presence have influenced the district to consider implementation of new programs or practices95.8%98.6%News coverage of charter schools has detracted from coverage of district schools74.5%76.7%The district has an official position statement on charter schools74.5%54.8%The district has created (or is considering creating) campus charter schools63.9%65.7%The district held parent meetings to discuss charter school issues63.9%54.8% The most commonly reported response to the presence of charter schools has been for district administrators to meet for discussions of charter school issues. This event has taken place in nearly one-third of districts overall and in more than 40 percent of districts near existing charter schools. Similarly, charter school issues have been included on board agendas in more than 20 percent of districts. Other events listed in Table IV.5 have occurred in fewer than 10 percent of districts thus far. Several respondents wrote or related events that illustrate the practical reality of indicators listed in Table IV.5. The superintendent from a large district in north central Texas commented on one charter schools negative PR approach. A superintendent in a small rural north Texas district observed that the negative publicity surrounding the charter schools has helped traditional public schools somewhat by illustrating how much better the traditional public schools are doing. Charter School Effects on Districts Respondents were asked whether their districts, or the larger community, had been affected by charter schools in any way. Respondents indicating that there have been no discernable effects were instructed to stop answering survey questions at this point. Thus several tables in the remainder of this chapter are based on responses from 46 districts. The results for all respondents are shown in Table IV.6. Thirty percent (46 respondents) indicated that charter schools have affected their districts. This proportion rises to 44 percent when calculated for the 105 respondents from districts where charter schools have opened. An examination of Table IV.6 reveals that respondents from large districts reported effects from the presence of charter schools more frequently than did respondents from mid-size or small districts. Table IV.6 Respondents Reporting Charter School Effects, by District Size No Effect Noted (N=108)Effect Noted (N=46)NumberPercentNumberPercentSmall districts4386.0%714.0%Mid-size districts3869.1%1730.9%Large districts2755.1%2244.9% As displayed in Table IV.7, more than two-thirds of respondents characterized the effects of existing charter schools as mild, whereas fewer than 10 percent indicated that the effects have been strong. Table IV.7 Intensity of Charter School Effects in Respondents Districts EffectResponses (N=44)*NumberPercentMild3170.5%Moderate920.5%Strong49.1% *Two respondents reporting effects did not respond to this item. In Table IV.8, levels of effect intensity are presented by district size. An examination reveals that respondents from mid-size districts reported mild effects more frequently than did respondents from small or large districts. Table IV.8 Intensity of Charter School Effects, by District Size EffectSmall Districts (N=7)Mid-Size Districts (N=17)Large Districts (N=20)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentMild571.4%1482.4%1260.0%Moderate0--317.6%630.0%Strong228.6%0--210.0% As shown in Table IV.9, nearly half (44 percent) of respondents reporting effects from charter schools indicated that the effects have been detrimental, whereas two characterized the effects as beneficial. Table IV.9 Nature of Charter School Effects in Respondents Districts EffectResponses (N=41)*NumberPercentDetrimental1843.9%Neutral2151.2%Beneficial24.9%*Five respondents reporting effects did not respond to this item. Table IV.10 separates responses pertaining to the nature of charter school effects by district size. Respondents from mid-size districts reported neutral effects more frequently than did respondents from small or large districts. Table IV.10 Nature of Charter School Effects, by Size of Respondents District EffectSmall Districts (N=7)Mid-Size Districts (N=16)Large Districts (N=18)NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentDetrimental342.9%743.8%844.4%Neutral342.9%956.3%950.0%Beneficial114.3%0--15.6% District Students Attending Charter Schools Respondents were asked whether students have left district schools to attend charter schools and whether they expect students to leave district schools next year. A total of 37 respondents reported that students in district schools have left to attend area charter schools. This represents 24 percent of all 154 respondents and 35 percent of the 105 respondents from districts near existing charter schools. Of all respondents, 11 percent (17 respondents) predicted that students will leave next year, and a similar proportion indicated that they were not sure whether students would leave. A few (5 percent or 8 respondents) indicated that no students would leave next year to attend charter schools. Respondents were also asked whether students who previously dropped out of district schools have begun attending charter schools. Seventeen reported that students who previously dropped out of district schools now attend area charter schools. This figure represents 11 percent of all 154 respondents and 16 percent of the 105 respondents from districts near existing charter schools. In some cases, students attending local charter schools did not leave districts in their area. As explained by the superintendent of a large urban north Texas district, effects in the district have been neutral because students generally come from private schools to begin with. When students leave district schools to attend charter schools, however, the difficulty of tracking them should be noted. According to a superintendent of a mid-size suburban central Texas district, Charter schools are apparently not required to notify the respective districts that [their] students are enrolled. Unless a student goes directly to a charter from a district and records are requested, it is difficult to know how many district students are attending a charter. Unless a student enters the district at some point, we have no means to track the impact on the district, as is the case with home schooling. On the other hand, 27 respondents (18 percent of all respondents and 26 percent of those in districts near operating charter schools) indicated that one or more students have returned or transferred to district schools after attending charter schools. Another 11 respondents were not sure whether this had occurred. Although few districts have noted the return of students from charter schools thus far, the effects may be quite detrimental. Respondents from several districts provided information on a variety of problems they have encountered that are related to the issue of students leaving charter schools to enrollor re-enrollin district schools. The superintendent of a small rural central Texas district wrote, the method of instruction at the charter school in the higher level classes has caused [our district] and surrounding school districts to look at the possibility of testing students as they re-enroll before granting credit for upper level math, science, and English courses. Students who have re-enrolled are not prepared for the next level of courses. At the present time, [the charter school] only has two certified teachers. The director of research and evaluation in a large urban west Texas district wrote, high school principals report that many students have left the traditional public schools with failing grades and returned As and Bs or otherwise passing grades. In other words, these students use the open entry, open exit opportunities offered by charters and other private schools to pass courses in order to receive a traditional public school diploma. In addition, these principals report that the returning students havent really learned the material they passed while away and dont pass the next levels of the classes. To the high schools, the problem is not the numbers leaving, but the numbers using a revolving door. A high school principal from a mid-size suburban north central Texas district expressed concern about the same situation: I am most concerned about students who leave in the middle of a semester and then return at the beginning of the next semester with seven or more credits earned. They are getting all credits for English, math, and science at a charter school and then returning here needing only one-half to one credit to graduate. They want the [district] diploma but without the effort involved. Similarly, the superintendent of a large urban south Texas school district commented on student placement: Middle school students who are 14 years of age are placed in the ninth grade at charter schools. Some of these students had not completed the eighth grade. The assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction from another large south Texas district wrote, our district is very concerned about the [local] charter school. There appears to be limited accountability in their programming. Students complete multiple credits in a short period of time. Questionable standards seem to exist. Transfer to records is incomplete. Finally, students may leave to avoid disciplinary sanctions in district schools. For example, the superintendent of a mid-size northeast Texas district indicated that the type of students typically leaving the district to attend charter schools are students assigned to DAEP [Disciplinary Alternative Education Program] and refusing to attend. Similarly, the special programs director from a rural mid-size central Texas district wrote, the turnover in charter administration and staff is high [as is] the student turnover rate. Most students who initially attend [charter schools do so] due to discipline consequences [but] eventually return to traditional public school. Students who withdraw from charters have been academically deficient for their grade level or course in comparison to traditional public school. TAAS results are consistently lower. Table IV.11 displays information about students leaving district schools to attend charter schools, providing attrition data by student group. At-risk students comprise the group leaving district schools most frequently to attend charter schools. Two districts have lost students seeking a GED, and six have lost students categorized as other. According to respondents written comments, the other category includes students avoiding disciplinary consequences, discipline problems and foster care, and students who had previously been home schooled or enrolled in private schools. Table IV.11 Groups of Students Formerly Attending Schools in Respondents Districts, Now Attending Charter Schools Student GroupNumber Reporting Particular Student Group LeavingPercent Indicating Any Student Group Leaving (N=37)Percent near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)At-risk students 3286.5%30.5%Average ability students 1232.4%11.4%High ability students 1129.7%10.5%Special education students 616.2%5.7%Other students616.2%5.7%Students seeking GED25.4%1.9% Tables IV.12 and IV.13 represent student attrition information by intensity and nature of effects. No discernable patterns emerge from these data, aside from the fact that the effects of losing students from each group are mild for a majority of districts. However, it should be recognized that strong and beneficial effects were noted most frequently for at-risk students and other students who attend charter schools. Table IV.12 Intensity of Effects, by Student Group in Respondents Districts Mild EffectModerate EffectStrong EffectTotal (N=37)*NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentAt-risk students2268.8%618.8%412.5%32Average ability students650.0%541.7%18.3%12High ability students545.5%545.5%19.1%11Special education students466.7%233.3%0--6Students seeking GED150.0%150.0%0--2Other students466.7%116.7%116.7%6*Row totals do not all add up to 37 because not all respondents reported losing students in each group, and not all respondents reported on effects. Table IV.13 Nature of Effects, by Student Group in Respondents Districts Detrimental EffectNeutral EffectBeneficial EffectTotal (N=37)*NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentAt-risk students1139.3%1553.6%27.1%28Average ability students654.5%545.5%0--11High ability students555.6%444.4%0--9Special education students240.0%240.0%120.0%5Students seeking GED2100.0%0--0--2Other students480.0%120.0%0--5*Row totals do not all add up to 37 because not all respondents reported losing students in each group, and not all respondents reported on effects. Financial Effects of Charter Schools on Districts Respondents were asked whether their districts had experienced financial effects as a result of charter schools opening in their area. Of the 105 districts near operating charter schools, approximately one-quarter (26 percent) indicated financial effects. Of the 46 respondents who had reported that charter schools had affected their districts, all but one responded to this question. Of those, 28 (62 percent) reported financial effects, whereas 17 (38 percent) reported no financial effects. It may be difficult to determine whether charter schools have affected districts financially. The director of research and evaluation in a large urban west Texas district described the situation: The finance office tells me that they have no way of telling the amount of money lost to charter schools, and this district does not do much to keep track of the number of students who withdrew to charters. Respondents from districts affected financially by charter schools selected one or more reasons for reporting these effects from a list provided on the questionnaire. These reasons are listed in Table IV.14. One respondent marked other. Table IV.14 Reasons Respondents Indicated for Reporting Financial Effects Reason IndicatedNumber Indicating this ReasonPercent Indicating Financial Effects* (N=28)Percent near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)Financial effects should be measured directly as lost ADA 2382.1%21.9%Diminished accuracy in fall enrollment makes personnel budgeting difficult1346.4%12.4%The district lost federal funding it would have received1346.4%12.4%Students left charter schools and re-enrolled in the district after fall enrollment count 828.6%7.6%*These respondents are part of the group of 46 respondents who reported that their districts had experienced effects from the presence of charter schools. More than three-quarters of respondents who indicated that their districts had been affected financially maintain that financial effects should be measured directly as lost ADA funding (that is, funding based on average daily attendance). Twenty provided estimates of ADA funding their districts have lost as a result of losing students to charter schools. An examination of their estimated amounts, shown in Table IV.15, reveals that 11 districts lost amounts of $200,000 or less, whereas nine districts lost $400,000 or more. Table IV.15 Respondents Estimates of Lost ADA Funding Amounts Range of Estimates for Lost ADA FundsNumber Reporting Amount Lost (N=20)NumberPercentLess than $10,000315%$25,000($100,000420%$160,000($200,000420%$400,000($750,000630%$4,000,000($24,000,000315% Nine respondents indicated that their districts have lost federal funds that they would otherwise have received to charter schools. These respondents provided estimates of federal funding their districts have lost. An examination of their estimated amounts, shown in Table IV.16, reveals that four districts lost amounts of $16,000 or less, whereas five districts lost $100,000 or more. Table IV.16 Respondents Estimates of Lost Federal Funding Amounts Range of Estimates for Lost Federal FundsNumber Reporting Amount Lost (N=9)NumberPercentLess than $2,000111.1%$10,000($16,000333.3%$100,000($750,000333.3%$350,000($1,000,000222.2% The executive director for secondary education in a large west Texas district commented that the primary impact on the district has been financial. According to the assistant superintendent for finance in a large suburban east Texas district, I think charter schools are a mistake. We are a very successful district which has accomplished remarkable strides with our students. These charter schools are a back door attempt to fund private schools with public money. Similarly, the superintendent of a mid-size east Texas district wrote, Charter schools in our area duplicate the services we offer. Being a budget-balanced district, loss of state funding is negligible to [our district]. Costs to state taxpayers are significant and the benefits are highly questionable. Finally, the superintendent from a small rural east Texas district characterized the charter school in the district as located in a for profit drug rehab facility and asked, Where do you think the state money winds up? The only students who go there are clients of the rehab center. The average length of stay is around 35 days as they have no accountability. Respondents from districts unaffected financially by charter schools chose one or more reasons for reporting no effects from a list provided on the questionnaire. These reasons are listed in Table IV.17, along with proportions of respondents identifying them. The reason chosen most frequently was that no studentsor few studentshave left district schools to attend charter schools. Two respondents marked other. Table IV.17 Reasons Respondents Indicated for Reporting No Financial Effects Reason IndicatedNumber Indicating this ReasonPercent Indicating No Effects* (N=17)Percent near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)No students, or insignificant number, left district1058.8%9.5%Funding not considered lost because state funds charter schools directly529.4%4.8%Enrollment gains offset funding losses for leavers423.5%3.8%Leavers typically more expensive to educate317.6%2.9%*These respondents are part of the group of 46 respondents who reported that their districts had experienced effects from the presence of charter schools. Changes in District Policies, Programs, or Services Respondents indicated whether their districts have changed any policies, programs, or services in response to the presence of charter schools in the area. They were then asked to choose from reasons listed on the questionnaire for making changes (or for not making changes). Of the 46 respondents identifying effects from charter schools, 8 reported changes in their districts policies, programs, or services. Four indicated that their districts have expanded their offerings of educational programs or services, and another four reported that their districts have increased efforts to improve public relations or to market their schools. Three respondents each indicated that they have increased efforts to involve parents and community members in school activities or governance, or their districts have established campus charter schools. Two each indicated that their districts have expanded choice options or have begun contracting out for more educational services, such as those for at-risk students. One district cited the adoption of practices similar to an area charter school. The special programs director from a rural mid-size central Texas district wrote that the district has become more attentive to student needs [and to] aligning resources to [their] needs. In contrast, 37 (80 percent) of the 46 affected districts have not made changes in district policies, programs, or services. Respondents identified one or more reasons for reporting no changes from a list provided on the questionnaire. As shown in Table IV.18, just over two-thirds (70 percent) indicated that their districts have not changed in response to charter schools because district schools already offer programs and services offered by charter schools. In addition, nearly one-third (30 percent) indicated that area charter schools are too smallor too far from district schoolsto affect their programs and services. Four respondents indicated that there were other reasons for not changing policies, programs, or services. Table IV.18 Reasons Respondents Indicated for No Changes in Policies, Programs, or Services Reasons IndicatedNumber Indicating ReasonPercent Indicating No Changes (N= 37)Percent near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)Charter schools programs and services already available in district2670.324.8Area charter schools too small or far from district to affect programs and services1129.710.5Area charter schools serve specialized populations or offer programs district cannot offer513.54.8 In a written comment, the superintendent from a suburban mid-size east Texas district explained that no changes have been made in response to the presence of charter schools because district programs [are] not the reason for transfer to charter schools. The superintendent indicated that, instead, transfers are more a case of snob appeal or church affiliation. A superintendent from a mid-size suburban east Texas district commented that, charter schools are more a parent issue than a student issue. A superintendent from a small rural east Texas district wrote that no changes have been made in response to charter schools because they are so poor academically and have no accountability. Finally, the superintendent of a small rural central Texas district wrote that the local charter schoolwhich is located in a foster care facilitywas established because its management facility did not want to adhere to [district] policies. Effects of Charter Schools on Educators in District Schools Respondents were asked whether contact occurs between educators from district schools and from charter schools. Slightly more than half of the 46 respondents reporting charter school effects (25 respondents, or 54 percent) indicated that such contact takes place. Of these, 23 characterized the contact as infrequent; two respondents said contact occurs fairly often. The assistant superintendent for student services from a mid-size central Texas district indicated that a mechanism is in place in the district to identify successful charter school practices and share them with district educators. The assistant to the superintendent from a large south Texas district commented that the district has worked with charter school personnel throughout the year in a collaborative manner. By contrast, the superintendent of a large urban district, also from south Texas, wrote: We have made contact but the persons in charge change often. The superintendent from a mid-size central Texas district indicated that contact between educators has taken place, but only if [the charter school] needed something from the district. Finally, the superintendent of a mid-size northeast Texas district indicated that contact has occurred once, but that the truant officer [has] often returned students to their site. Respondents were also asked whether district educators have left district schools to work in charter schools and whether class sizes have been affected. Eight of 46 (17 percent) indicated that one or more educators have left, and eight (17 percent) said they were not sure whether any have left. Twelve of 46 (26 percent) indicated that class sizes have been affected; another four (9 percent) were not sure. In at least two cases, declining enrollment has brought districts to the point of laying off teachers. The superintendent from a mid-size suburban east Texas district described the situation in the district: Charter schools located one-half mile between two secondary schools have hurt the district. The decline in enrollment caused teacher lay-offs. TAAS performance of students who return is causing concerns. Similarly, the superintendent of a small rural central Texas district reported that the local charter school caused some very hard feelings with past administration and board of trustees by failing to inform them that it would open. More than 90 students left the district to attend the charter school, which is located in a residential facility. This left [the district] with excess personnel and in turn strained the relationship between the district and the community. The superintendent believes more students will leave during the 2000-01 school year. Finally, respondents were asked how the presence of charter schools has affected the morale of district educators. Their responses are presented in Table IV.19. More than three-quarters (76 percent or 35) of the 46 from affected districts indicated that educator morale was unchanged. Table IV.19 Effect of Charter School on Morale of Educators in Respondents District NumberPercent Indicating Any Effect (N=46)Percent near Operating Charter Schools (N=105)Morale deteriorated 919.6%8.6%Morale unchanged 3576.1%33.3%Morale improved 12.2%1.0% Respondents who indicated that morale had changed were asked to choose one or more reasons for the change in their districts. The one respondent indicating that morale had improved noted that educators welcome additional educational choices for all students in the district. Of the nine reporting that morale had deteriorated, five reported that educators are concerned about public perception of their schools as less desirable than charter schools. Three indicated that educators dislike losing high-achieving students to area charter schools. Three responded that educators are worried that special-needs students in charter schools may not get an appropriate education. Three noted educators regard increased student mobility as disruptive to the educational process. Two indicated that the presence of charter schools has created an atmosphere of loss or uncertainty, and two also reported that educators dislike losing supportive, involved parents to area charter schools. Charter School Effects on Students and Parents Respondents were asked whether charter schools had affected the level of parent involvement in district schools. Only one indicated that the level of involvement had been affected. Respondents also were asked whether students in district schools were affected. Five of 46 (11 percent) indicated that students have been affected. One indicated that it seems important to students that people view their school as equal or superior to charter schools. The remaining four indicated that students were affected for other reasons. According to the assistant superintendent for finance in a large suburban east Texas district, These charter schools are an attempt to segregate our communities. I think they could be useful in forcing unacceptable schools to improve their performance, but in [our district], they are just hurting the students in our district Our students have fewer educational resources due to the loss of revenue. A high school principal in a mid-size northeast Texas district commented that students look at charter schools as an easy way to get a diploma. Similarly, the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in a large south Texas district wrote, students attend to receive quick and easy credits. Finally, the superintendent from a small suburban north central Texas district wrote athletic events [were] cancelled when charter school abruptly pulled out. On the subject of athletic events, the superintendent of a small north central Texas district explained that the charter school in his University Interscholastic League (UIL) district paid no attention to UIL rules. The UIL State Executive Committee disqualified the school for district honors in all athletic activities throughout the 1999-00 school year and disciplined the schools athletic director. Additional Comments At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to provide additional comments about open-enrollment charter schools. A comment provided by the associate superintendent for curriculum from a large urban east Texas district provides an excellent example of the array of challenges district officials face as a result of charter schools operating within or near the boundaries of their districts. This associate superintendent wrote, charter schools weve seen have been of poor quality and poorly managed. Too many of these seem to be a way for an individual or business to tap into state money. Advertising from charter schools tends to suggest that traditional public schools are failing. [This] adds to misinformation the public gets from the media. They may be meeting needs somewhere, but not in [this district]. The superintendent of a mid-size northeast Texas district expressed similar concerns: The level of accountability and fiscal responsibility is so minimal with charter schools that they can exist outside the traditional public school system in ways which we would not tolerate or accept as reasonable. Our charter school seems most interested in selling their software to public education. The comments of several respondents reflected concern about state-level oversight of charter schools. For example, the superintendent from a small suburban north central Texas district wrote that a charter school in the area is an embarrassment to public education everywhere. Many extra district meetings were held, sanctions and reprimands were invoked. Charter schools have had poor student performance, and have been poorly monitored in Texas. Yet more charters are issued each year. Whats wrong with this picture? More succinctly, the superintendent from a mid-size east Texas district wrote of the charter school in his area: It is a jokeit should be investigated and closed! The superintendent of a small rural central Texas district expressed concern for the safety and adequate care of students attending a local residential charter school and for the quality of the educational program they receive there: students who have returned [to district schools] lack the skills necessary to function successfully. This superintendent directed a plea to members of the State Board of Education: I strongly encourage you to visit the charter school. The facilities are very poor. The grounds are deplorable and unsafe. I am concerned for the safety of the students who attend. Finally, the associate superintendent of a large suburban north central Texas district used a series of rhetorical questions to express concern that charter schools be held to the same standards as traditional school districts: Should charter schools be evaluated in a non-political manner? Yes Should charter schools be accountable? Yes Should charter schools employ certified teachers and administrators? Yes Should charter schools follow UIL rules? Yes Should charter schools be financially responsible? Yes Should charter schools be required to follow state curriculum, keep records and grades, provide transcripts, [and] keep attendance? Yes Summary Charter schools are still fairly new in Texas, having been authorized by the Legislature in 1996, and the numbers of charter schools and students are relatively small. Fewer than half of districts near operating charter schools have held meetings of administrators to discuss charter school issues. Just over one-quarter have included charter school issues on board agendas. Thus, it is not surprising that approximately three-quarters of the 154 respondents reported no effects from charter schools. Moreover, more than two-thirds of respondents from the 46 districts reporting effects characterized these as mild, and nearly half, as neutral. Among affected districts, slight trends were observed. For example, mid-size districts reported mild or neutral effects more frequently than did small or large districts. Fewer than one-quarter of districts near operating charter schools reported that students have left district schools to attend charter schools. The largest groups of former district students attending charter schools belong to the at-risk and dropout categories. Although few districts thus far have noted the return of students to district schools from charter schools, the effects may be quite detrimental. A specific problem mentioned by several respondents involves students transferring back to traditional public schools without having mastered the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in courses for which they received credit at the charter school. Approximately one-quarter of districts near operating charter schools indicated that they have experienced financial effects. However, among the 46 respondents reporting general effects, well over half reported financial effects specifically. The main reasons for reporting effects are related to funds based on average daily attendance they consider lost and to diminished accuracy in their ability to estimate fall enrollment numbers, thus making it difficult to budget for personnel. Respondents reporting no financial effects were most likely to base their response on the fact that no studentsor an insignificant number of studentshave left district schools to attend charter schools. Charter schools may have a competitive influence on some districts, causing them to become more aggressive in meeting student needs. Very few respondents reported that their districts have changed policies, programs, or services in response to the presence of charter schools in the area. Similarly, very few reported any effects on district educators, students, or parents. Chapter V: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools This chapter presents basic data on open-enrollment charter schools. It addresses the following issues: numbers of charters revoked, returned, and renewed numbers of charter schools by charter type and/or percentages of at-risk students enrolled general characteristics of schools grades served, enrollments, size of faculty, student-teacher ratios student characteristics percentages of at-risk and economically disadvantaged students, and race and ethnicity of students faculty characteristics race and ethnicity, average salary, average years of experience, percent with advanced degrees Numbers of Charters Revoked, Returned, and Renewed As seen in Table V.1, to date, 4 open-enrollment charters have been revoked by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), and 18 have been returned by charter recipients. All charters revocations by the SBOE have been for financial irregularities. Table V.1 Charters Revoked, Returned, and Renewed Revoked N=3Returned N=15Renewed N=17Cypress Youth LodgeL.O.V.E.Seashore Learning CenterEmma L. HarrisonH.O.P.E.SER NinosRamesesF.A.I.T.H.West HoustonBrazos ValleyP.O.W.E.R.George I. SanchezAcademy of AustinGirls and Boys PrepEl Paso CommunityRaul YzaguirreNeighborhood PrideUniversity of HoustonAustin Interactive LearningMedical CenterSkys the LimitAmerican Youth WorksFreedom SchoolAc. of Transitional StudiesSpace Center HoustonPegasusGateway West Texas A&MWacoHeritage AcademyDallas CanBolding AcademyOnestop MultiserviceCrystal Hills PreparatoryNorth HillsRenaissanceBlessed SacramentAll Saints AcademyBuilding AlternativesSCAN Charter schools are originally granted a five-year charter. Eighteen of the original 19 first-generation schools that opened in 1996 submitted renewal applications, and at the March 2001 SBOE meeting, 17 received charter renewals for a ten-year period. The renewal of an additional first-generation charter school (Texas Academy of Excellence) is scheduled for review at the November 2001 SBOE meeting. Classifying Charter Schools One way of categorizing charter schools is to distinguish between those that serve primarily traditional students and those that exist to serve students who are at-risk of leaving the public school system. These schools often have different missions, a difference that carries through into curriculum and pedagogy. To combine these two different types of schools together for evaluation purposes obscures important distinctions and may result in schools being held to standards or being assessed in ways that are not appropriate. In the first- and second-year charter school evaluation reports, evaluators distinguished between at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools based on the mission statements included in charter applications. Schools that indicated a mission to serve primarily at-risk students were designated at-risk schools, with the remainder of the charter schools being designated non-at-risk schools. In the third-year evaluation report, the distinction between at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools was based upon the percentage of a schools enrollment that was identified as economically disadvantaged. A school that reported 75 percent or more economically disadvantaged students was designated an at-risk school. Others were designated non-at-risk schools. Although the at-risk/non-at-risk distinction was useful for grouping schools for evaluation purposes, it does not correspond with any classification recognized by the () in reporting on traditional public schools. Furthermore, readers of the first three evaluation reports were often confused by the fact that the at-risk designation in Texas applies to students, not schools. Consequently, a different classification scheme is being used for this fourth-year evaluation report, one that focuses on a distinction that the SBOE uses in granting charters. The SBOE has granted two types of charters general open-enrollment charters and 75 Percent Rule charters. During the 1999-00 school year, the number of general open-enrollment charter schools could not exceed 120; however, state law at that time allowed for an unlimited number of 75 Percent Rule schools charter schools enrolling 75 percent or more at-risk students. In this report, evaluators distinguish between schools that were granted a general open-enrollment charter and schools that were chartered under the 75 Percent Rule. The 75 Percent Rule was first instituted with Generation three charter schools. Consequently, schools that were granted charters in the first two years are all identified as general open-enrollment charters, although many of these schools were created to serve primarily at-risk students. Consequently, in order to maintain comparability with previous evaluation reports, this report identifies both those general open-enrollment charter schools that enroll 75 percent or more at-risk students and those that enroll less than 75 percent at-risk students. To summarize, this report presents data on charter schools in the aggregate, as well as for three different categories of charter schools: charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students, charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students, and 75 Percent Rule charter schools Table V.2 presents the average percentages of at-risk students for each type of charter school, as well as the numbers of schools enrolling more and less than 75 percent students who are at-risk. It should be noted that not all of the 75 Percent Rule charter schools enroll 75 percent at-risk students. Slightly more than half of 75 Percent Rule charter schools actually enroll 75 percent or more at-risk students. For the 22 schools not meeting the 75 percent criterion, the average percentage of at-risk is 28. It is highly likely, however, that data quality problems affected reported percentages; many newly-formed charter schools have experienced difficulties entering PEIMS data. Table V.2 Average At-Risk Percentages for Charter Schools by Category Texas Charter SchoolsCharter Schools < 75% At-riskCharter Schools ( 75% At-risk75% Rule Charter SchoolsAverage at-risk percentage47.7*%21.2%92.4%60.2%Number of schools ( 75%5603323Number of schools < 75%10078022Total number of schools156783345* Careful readers will notice that this figure differs from the one presented in Table V.5 (41.7%). The difference exists because the figure presented in this table is the average of the school at-risk percentages, while the figure presented in Table V.5 is the percentage of all students in Texas charter schools who are classified at-risk. Source: Figures are computed using 1999-00 AEIS campus data for 156 charter schools (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). Table V.3a, V.3b, and V.3c list the charter schools operating for the majority of the 1999-00 school year by school type. There are 78 general open-enrollment charter schools that enroll less than 75 percent at-risk students, 34 general open-enrollment charter schools that enroll 75 percent or more at-risk students, and 46 designated as 75 Percent Rule charter schools. Table V.3a Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students (78 Schools)Grades*EnrollmentStudent-Teacher Ratio**A. W. Brown Fellowshippre k-317124Academy of Skills and Knowledge3-8849Academy of Beaumontk-613810Academy of Dallask-617813Academy of Houstonk-744115Academy of San Antoniok-68213Alief Montessori Communitypre k-69321American Institute for Learning9-1223324Arlington Classics Academypre k-831114Benjis Special Education pre k-813623Blessed Sacrament9-1218419Bright Ideask-126719Burnham Woodk-3, 9-111159Career Plus Learning Academy6238Children First Academy of Dallask-712325Children First Academy of Houstonk-723017Dallas Communitypre k-k5920Eagle Advantagek-1210414Ed White School of Educationpre k-2, 9-1215717Eden Park Academyk-827010Encino Schoolpre k-87017Erath Excels Academy9-128319Gabriel Tafola5-129117Gateway9-1211740George I Sanchez9-1235218George I Sanchez8-12168Girls and Boys Preparatory Academy6-1239413Houston Advantagek-522910Houston Heights Learning Academypre k-27315Jean Massieu Academyk-11398Katherine Anne Porter9-126112La Escuela De Las Americaspre k-19924Life, Oak Cliffk-856919Mainland Preparatory Academypre k-721515Medical Center (101801101)k-510323Medical Center (101801102)pre k-68333Mid-Valley Academy9-125134Midland Advantagek-558623Nancy Ney4-124912New Frontiersk-665225North Hills School5-1040912North Houston High School for Business9-123118 Table V.3a (continued) Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students (78 Schools)Grades*EnrollmentStudent-Teacher Ratio**Novapre k-515518Northwest Math, Science, and Languagepre k-512621NYOSk-813513Odyssey Academy Inc.6-717320One-stop Multiservicepre k, 9-1217989Paso del Norte9-1214823Pegasus7-1215618Pineywoods Community Academyk-820816Positive Solutions9-1215627Raul Yzaguirre School for Successpre k-1158616Renaissance (057801001)9-1220317Renaissance (057801002)9-128414Renaissance (057801003)4-12106--Renaissance Jr. High (057801041)7-88314Renaissance Elementary (057801101)4-68020Richard Milburn , Killeen9-1210524Richard Milburn, Lubbock9-126421Rise Academypre k-k3015Rylie Faith Family Academypre k-1253621School of Excellence in Educationpre k-947617Seashore Learning Centerk-615612Sentry Technology Prep9-1226187South Plains9-1214319Star Charter1-119016Texas Academy of Excellencepre k-417823Texas Empowerment Academy5-96119Texas Languagek-34221Tovas Tactile, Oral, Visualpre k-94310Transformative Charter Academy9-12106106Treetops School Internationalpre k-1222112University of Houstonk-410120Universal Academypre k-1038215Varnettpre k-549119Waxahachie Faith Family pre k-917213West Houston (101803101)1-69714West Houston (101803041)7-1214014Average18017* Listed grade levels reflect grades for which AEIS data actually show students enrolled. These may differ from grade levels that schools indicate they intend to serve in their charter applications. ** Student-teacher ratios are computed by dividing the AEIS school enrollment by the AEIS number of teachers. Note: indicates in Snapshot 2000 that there were 142 charter districts in operation in 1999-00, and 176 charter school campuses (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2000/state.html). Table V.3.b Charter Schools Serving 75 Percent or More At-Risk Students Charter Schools Serving 75 Percent or More At-Risk Students (34 Schools)Grades*EnrollmentStudent-Teacher Ratio**Academy of Accelerated Learning9-1214923Academy of Transitional Studies6-1220267Building Alternatives9-1212412Cedar Ridge4-122815Coastal Bend Youth City5-12468Dallas Advantagek-525310Dallas Can Academy (057804001)9-1223629Dallas Can Academy (057804002)9-1251123East Texas Charter High School9-125222Harris County Juv Justice (101811001)5-1121313Harris County Juv Justice (101811004)7-121088Heights7-1211218Higgs, Carter, King Gifted and Talentedpre k-717513Honors Academy***------Houston Can Academy9-1232029John H. Wood6-1210213Kipp, Inc.5-929015Rapoportpre k-27510Raven School9-1218413Richard Milburn, Corpus Christi9-1212619Richard Milburn, Midland9-124523Ser-Ninospre k-525815Southwest Preparatory9-1217718Technology Education9-1213923Texas Serenity Academy, Bayshore9-1064Texas Serenity Academy7-12199University Charter, A R C Ranch 8-122121University Charter, Hill Country9-121818University Charter, Marywood8-1277University Charter, Settlement Home6-9, 1199University Charter, Meridale-Windridge6-12269University Charter, Meridale-Westwood7-10185University Charter, National Elite Gym6-101010Waco Charterk-520226Average13016* Listed grade levels reflect grades for which AEIS data actually show students enrolled. These may differ from grade levels that schools indicate they intend to serve in their charter applications. ** Student-teacher ratios are computed by dividing the AEIS school enrollment by the AEIS number of teachers. *** No data were reported for Honors Academy in the AEIS. Note: indicates in Snapshot 2000 that there were 142 charter districts in operation in 1999-00, and 176 charter school campuses (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2000/state.html). Table V.3c 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools (46 Schools)Grades*EnrollmentStudent-Teacher Ratio**Alphonso Crutchs Life School6-1227542American Academy of Excellence7, 9-124926Amigos Por Vidapre k-524419Bolding Academyk-6239Brazos School for Inquiryk-127035Calvin Nelms9-125320Comquest Academy9-127113Crossroads Community Education Ctr.7-129613Dallas County Juvenile Justice5-1253913Eagle Project, Abilene8-124916Eagle Project, Beaumont9-115117Eagle Project, Brownsville6-125115Eagle Project, Bryan6-124416Eagle Project, Dallas7-115318Eagle Project, Del Rio6-125017Eagle Project, Ft. Worth6-124716Eagle Project, Laredo II6-125619Eagle Project, Lubbock7-124415Eagle Project, Midland7-125117Eagle Project, San Antonio II6-125418Eagle Project, Texarkana6-125619Eagle Project, Tyler8-124415Eagle Project, Waco6-113913Eagle Project, Pharr-Mcallen9-125315Faith Family Academy, Oak Cliffpre k-1039814Focus Learning Academyk-611710Fruit of Excellence1-104211Guardian Angel Performance6-85420Gulf Shores Academy7-1224818Heritage Academy9-1237563I Am That I Am Academy4-10639Impact pre k-49818Jamies House6-124510Jesse Jackson Academy9-1210351La Amistad Love and Learningpre k-k5252Prepared Tablepre k-1282327Radiance Acad of Learning (015815001)pre k-1117912Radiance Acad of Learning (015815101)k-89625Ranch Academy7-12429Shekinah Radiance Academyk-1113812Southwest High School9-1221712Tekoa Academyk-615715Theresa B. Lee Academy9-1212525Two Dimensions Preparatory Academypre k-818511Valley High9-1219924Wa-Set Preparatory Academyk-3245Average13118* Listed grade levels reflect grades for which AEIS data actually show students enrolled. These may differ from grade levels that schools indicate they intend to serve in their charter applications. ** Student-teacher ratios are computed by dividing the AEIS school enrollment by the AEIS number of teachers. Note: indicates in Snapshot 2000 that there were 142 charter districts in operation in 1999-00, and 176 charter school campuses (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2000/state.html). The reports that 142 charter school districts were active in 1999-00, and there were a total of 176 charter school campuses. The number of campuses is greater because some charter recipients (i.e., charter schools) operate more than one campus. This report presents data for 158 campuses with Academic Excellence Information System (AEIS) data. Figures in this report were calculated using AEIS data for individual campuses, so numbers differ from the aggregate data for charter schools reported on the website. For example, reports an aggregate enrollment in Texas charter schools of 25,687 students, while the campuses covered in this report enroll only 24,378. Many of the sources from which this report is compiled present aggregate data for charter schools. Throughout the report, evaluators will alert readers to data discrepancies through the use of explicit comments or footnotes. General Characteristics For the 156 charter school campuses in this report for which there were complete data, 24,272 students were taught by 1,434 teachers, a ratio of 16.9 students per teacher. By comparison, there are 14.9 students per teacher in Texas traditional public schools. There were 176 charter school campuses operating in the state in 1999-00, with an average of 146 students per school. For the 156 charter school campuses with complete data, the average enrollment was 156. These figures were lower than the average size reported in the 1997-98 evaluation report (217) or the 1998-99 report (198), but are comparable to the figure reported in 1996-97 report (147). The U.S. Department of Educations report on charter schools notes that more than 60 percent of all charter schools are small schools that enroll fewer than 200 students with almost 35 percent enrolling fewer than 100 students; in contrast, only 16 percent of all public schools in states with charter schools enroll fewer than 200 students, and about nine percent enroll fewer than 100 students. In charter school campuses in the evaluation database, the smallest charter school enrolled 6 students, and the largest enrolled 823. Student Characteristics Critics claimed that the creation of charter schools would result in a stratified education system with White students in academically-oriented institutions and minority students in schools serving at-risk populations or schools with vocational programs. In consideration of potential inequities, Texas charter school legislation (TEC 12.111(6)) contains language that prohibits enrollment discrimination by charter schools. To examine enrollment issues, Table V.4 compares all charter schools with traditional public schools in Texas. Overall, charter schools have considerably higher percentages of minority students and lower percentages of White students than the traditional Texas public school system, although the percentage of Hispanic students in charter schools (38) is roughly equal to the percentage of Hispanic students in the traditional public schools (40). Table V.4 Overall Charter School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 1999-00 (percentages) Race/EthnicityTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsCharter Schools < 75% At-riskCharter Schools ( 75% At-risk75% Rule Charter SchoolsAfrican American1439333555Hispanic4038365229White4322281314Other23322Total Count*3,966,09625,68714,0624,2716,045Note: Percentages and totals for the last three columns in this table are not available from . They were calculated using AEIS school-level data for total enrollment and race/ethnicity (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). For each kind of schools, the average number of students in each race/ethnicity category was multiplied by the number of schools. The resulting estimate of the total number of students in each race/ethnicity category (African American, Hispanic, White) by kind of school was then divided by the estimated total number of students in each kind of charter school. The resulting percentages are estimates racial/ethnic student percentages for each of the kinds of charter schools addressed in the last three columns of the table. * The totals for the last three columns in the table, representing the three kinds of charter schools addressed in this report, do not sum to the total for all charter schools in column one. The total in column one is the total charter school enrollment as presented in the AEIS data. The totals in the last three columns are totals computed from school level AEIS data for the three kinds of charter schools. The discrepancy arises from the fact that the AEIS data indicates that there were 176 charter campuses in 1999-00, but the evaluators were able to obtain school level data for only 156 campuses. Source: Figures in columns labeled Texas Public Schools and Texas Charter Schools, , Snapshot 2000 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2000/state.html). The predominance of minority students in charter schools persists when the charter schools are disaggregated into the three types considered in this report. African American students are heavily represented in all types of charter schools. This over-representation is most pronounced in the 75 Percent Rule schools, where the concentration of African American students is 40 percentage points greater than the traditional public school system. School choice advocates have long contended that minority students, who are disproportionately concentrated in the weakest traditional public schools, would be the most likely to choose other alternatives. This logic, however, does not explain why African American students are over-represented in the charter schools while Hispanic students are not. There is a modest tendency for African American percentages to be higher in large schools such as Prepared Table, Girls and Boys Prep, Academy of Houston, and Faith Family Academy of Oak Cliff. Overall, however, the correlation between African American enrollment and school size is low. Table V.5 presents data for schools that enroll predominantly one racial/ethnic group (90 percent or more African American, Hispanic, or White). There are more schools that are predominantly African American than schools that are predominantly Hispanic or White, and the predominantly African American schools are larger. This, of course, partially accounts for the over-representation of African American students in charter schools as a whole, but it does not explain why there should be more large, predominantly African American charter schools. Table V.5 Charter Schools Dominated by One Ethnic/Racial Group ( 90% African American( 90% Hispanic( 90% WhiteEnrollment20816767Number of Schools27206Source: school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). In general, Hispanic students are not over-represented in charter schools, but they are heavily concentrated in charter schools enrolling 75 percent or more at-risk students. The concentration of Hispanic students in these schools in 1999-00 data is similar to that found in previous charter school evaluation reports. A possible explanation is that most Hispanic students have chosen charter schools as a means of addressing schooling difficulties they have experienced in the traditional public schools. The proportion of White students in all three types of charter schools is smaller compared to Texas traditional public schools as a whole. White students are most heavily concentrated in charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students. This suggests that White households probably do not turn to charter schools to rescue a student that has not done well in the traditional public schools, but they may seek charter schools for other reasons perhaps a unique curriculum, small class or school size, or a particular teaching philosophy. Tables V.6a-c present data on student characteristics for individual charter schools. These data demonstrate that many Texas charter schools have racially and ethnically distinctive enrollments. This issue was addressed by evaluators in the third-year charter school evaluation report, so that analysis is not replicated with the fourth-year data. Table V.6a Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students, Student Characteristics (percentages) SchoolAt-RiskAfr AmerHispWhiteEco DisA W Brown 67.894.24.70.681.9Acad of Beaumont24.897.11.41.460.1Acad of Dallas1.199.40.00.643.8Acad of Houston0.090.06.12.537.0Acad of San Antonio0.04.991.53.79.8Acad of Skills, Knowledge50.010.73.685.714.3Alief Montessori Comm.0.028.023.723.741.9Amer. Inst. for Learning65.217.645.935.664.4Arlington Classics Acad0.013.28.474.00.0Benjis Special Ed Acad32.497.12.20.799.3Blessed Sacrament Acad8.71.691.86.576.1Bright Ideas 1.53.010.485.10.0Burnham Wood0.07.852.235.733.9Career Plus Learning Acad34.830.469.60.087.0Children First, Dallas0.0100.00.00.00.0Children First, Houston0.097.42.60.00.0Dallas Community27.132.247.520.374.6Eagle Advantage 41.361.517.321.329.8Ed White School of Ed35.91.910.880.320.4Eden Park Acad26.87.824.465.212.2Encino School47.10.094.35.791.4Erath Excels Acad Inc53.72.419.377.167.5Gabriel Tafola5.50.091.28.883.5Gateway27.10.095.74.347.9George I Sanchez 37.812.587.50.043.8George I Sanchez37.81.796.32.068.2Girls and Boys Prep13.193.93.01.838.3Houston Advantage0.032.855.910.955.9Houston Heights0.030.167.12.70.0Jean Massieu Acad2.612.812.861.528.2Katherine Anne Porter29.50.08.291.826.2La Escuela de las Americas1.02.096.01.083.8Life of Oak Cliff30.656.615.626.740.6Mainland Preparatory Acad40.988.83.77.453.0Medical Center34.970.97.812.636.9Medical Center34.980.77.28.466.3Mid-Valley Acad72.50.096.12.068.6Midland Advantage5.514.838.745.744.7Nancy Ney70.84.153.140.877.6New Frontiers42.53.285.011.369.3North Hills0.013.96.162.30.0N Houston HS for Business0.083.912.93.271.0NW Math and Science0.088.98.72.482.5 Table V.6a (continued) Charter Schools Serving Less than 75 Percent At-Risk Students, Student Characteristics (percentages) SchoolAt-RiskAfr AmerHispWhiteEco DisNova8.455.536.16.560.6NYOS7.44.46.786.77.4Odyssey Acad Inc20.211.056.628.359.5One Stop Multiservice70.40.092.76.758.7Paso Del Norte43.91.487.210.834.5Pegasus40.422.453.821.860.9Pineywoods Acad0.012.42.978.811.1Positive Solutions16.76.489.13.825.6Raul Yzaguirre School27.30.398.80.979.9Renaissance19.612.39.964.022.7Renaissance19.68.38.382.110.7Renaissance19.620.825.550.060.4Renaissance19.613.119.357.831.3Renaissance19.620.013.860.017.5Richard Milburn, Killeen0.044.821.926.70.0Richard Milburn, Lubbock1.617.264.118.864.1Rise Acad3.356.736.76.793.3Rylie Faith Family Acad0.017.026.554.942.0School of Excellence in Ed8.19.076.513.958.6Seashore Learning Center10.30.614.780.80.0Sentry Technology Prep0.00.098.91.189.7South Plains0.07.069.923.146.2Star0.02.27.890.00.0Texas Acad of Excellence59.393.83.91.760.7Texas Empowerment Acad0.049.239.311.562.3Texas Language0.011.973.811.966.7Tovas Tactile, Oral, Visual41.934.99.353.562.8Transformative Acad30.223.624.545.30.0Treetops School Intl15.41.46.887.33.2Universal Acad7.697.11.31.047.6University of Houston20.831.724.836.60.0Varnett5.598.41.20.467.4Waxahachie Faith Family60.53.514.580.254.7West Houston21.74.310.781.40.0West Houston21.72.12.191.80.0Average19.433355544.2Source: school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). Table V.6b Charter Schools Serving 75 Percent or More At-Risk Students, Student Characteristics (percentages) SchoolAt-RiskAfr AmerHispWhiteEco DisAcad of Accelerated Lrning93.390.68.70.71.3Acad of Transitional Stud100.02.0091.16.975.7Building Alternatives83.983.751.67.371.8Cedar Ridge92.917.925.057.192.9Coastal Bend Youth City95.719.654.326.197.8Dallas Advantage75.334.059.35.175.1Dallas Can Acad100.054.736.08.576.3Dallas Can Acad100.045.650.33.564.6East Texas 100.021.213.563.551.9Harris County Juv Justice100.043.229.125.8100.0Harris County Juv Justice100.045.435.219.4100.0Heights75.015.269.615.278.6Higgs, Carter, King79.428.061.110.385.7Houston Can Acad100.069.428.12.227.5John H. Wood100.024.549.024.591.2Kipp, Inc86.810.786.22.191.7Rapoport90.796.01.32.794.7Raven School100.039.739.120.1100.0Richard Milburn, Corpus89.73.272.224.612.7Richard Milburn, Midland100.011.142.244.431.1Ser-Ninos95.33.995.70.089.9Southwest Preparatory87.020.941.836.232.8Technology Education99.30.798.60.792.8Texas Serenity Acad100.042.126.331.663.2Texas Serenity Bayshore100.050.033.316.7100.0University A R C Ranch89.623.833.342.90.0University Hill Country89.60.00.094.40.0University - Marywood89.628.628.642.90.0University Meridale We89.65.611.183.30.0University Meridale Wi89.623.13.873.10.0University National Elite89.60.010.080.00.0University Settlement 89.611.111.166.70.0Waco77.252.036.611.481.7Average92.735.036.028.068.7Source: school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). Table V.6c 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools, Student Characteristics (percentages) SchoolAt-RiskAfr AmerHispWhiteEco DisAlphonso Crutchs Life100.090.96.51.840.4Amer Acad of Excellence100.042.949.08.287.8Amigos Por Vida92.62.996.70.491.8Bolding Acad47.882.60.017.452.2Brazos School for Inquiry0.00.085.714.30.0Calvin Nelms94.35.718.975.50.0Comquest Acad0.07.014.178.952.1Crossroads Learning Ctr--0.04.295.87.3Dallas County Juv Justice100.044.036.417.8100.0Eagle Project Abilene 83.70.022.473.50.0Eagle Project Beaumont 100.094.10.05.90.0Eagle Project Brownsville 84.30.0100.00.00.0Eagle Project Bryan 100.020.522.756.80.0Eagle Project Dallas 75.5100.00.00.00.0Eagle Project Del Rio100.00.086.012.00.0Eagle Project Ft. Worth52.242.631.925.50.0Eagle Proejct Laredo II98.20.094.65.40.0Eagle Project Lubbock 100.015.936.447.70.0Eagle Proejct Midland 78.47.862.729.40.0Eagle Project Pharr-Mc94.30.0100.00.00.0Eagle Project S Antonio64.81.998.10.00.0Eagle Project Texarkana 100.055.41.842.90.0Eagle Project Tyler 50.018.26.875.00.0Eagle Project Waco 97.453.810.335.90.0Faith Family Acad, Oak Cl67.896.53.30.067.3Focus Learning Acad0.094.02.63.40.9Fruit of Excellence61.447.650.02.485.7Guardian Angel Perform0.024.157.416.774.1Gulf Shores Acad98.383.912.14.099.6Heritage Acad100.043.215.538.138.0I Am That I Am Acad0.0100.00.00.087.3Impact20.496.90.03.182.7Jamies House100.037.828.933.3100.0Jesse Jackson Acad100.091.37.81.048.5La Amistad Love & Lrning0.0100.00.00.098.1Prepared Table0.092.56.90.573.1Radiance Acad of Lrning0.08.465.425.14.5Radiance Acad of Lrning0.019.851.029.20.0Ranch Acad100.02.49.095.228.6Shekinah Radiance Acad0.018.165.215.90.0Southwest High School69.720.771.96.068.7Tekoa Acad0.098.70.60.055.4Theresa B. Lee Acad96.896.02.40.859.2Two Dimensions Prep36.298.91.10.059.5Valley High46.70.094.55.598.5Wa-set Preparatory Academy0.0100.00.00.00.0Average57.755.029.014.054.0Source: school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). At-risk students comprise a large proportion of charter school students in Texas. Table V.7 presents the at-risk percentage calculated by aggregating school-level data for the 156 charter school campuses in the evaluation database with complete data. Charter schools serve approximately 42 percent at-risk students, compared with 37 percent for the state. A recent Department of Education report indicates that Texas is distinctive in the number of charter schools (56 with 75 percent or more at-risk students) dedicated to the at-risk student population. About 15% of the fieldwork schools selected for the national report specifically target at-risk students or dropouts. The concentration in Texas of charter school resources on at-risk students calls into question the extent to which charter schools provide an education alternative for average households and students with fewer educational liabilities. It also raises skepticism about the extent to which charter schools will place competitive pressure on the traditional public education system. Table V.7 Charter School Special Populations, 1999-00 Special StatusTexas Public Schools**Texas Charter SchoolsCharter Schools < 75% At-Risk*Charter Schools ( 75% At-Risk*75% Rule Charter Schools*At-risk Students37***41.619.492.757.7LEP Students134.22.59.84.2Special Education Students126.25.310.84.9Gifted and Talented82.63.42.50.6* school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). ** , Snapshot 2000 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/shapshot/2000/state.html). *** , Charter School Traits (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/charter/falldata98.html). These data are somewhat dated, having been collected in the Fall of 1998. Schools that incorporate some degree of parental and student choice, such as magnet schools, are often charged with skimming off the most able students. In Texas, however, charter schools as a whole serve a disproportionate number of students with the greatest educational difficulties. Charter School Faculties Table V.8 provides a comparison of Texas open-enrollment charter school faculties with the faculties of traditional public schools in the state. Table V.8 Charter School Faculty, 1999-00 (percentages) Teacher CharacteristicTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsCharter Schools < 75% At-riskCharter Schools ( 75% At-risk75% Rule Charter SchoolsAfrican American838313259Hispanic1717152216White7443494624Other12501Advanced degree24.816.7------Student-teacher ratio14.916.817.116.417.5Average experience11.95.24.34.74.2Average salary$37,624$27,688$28,655$30,802$23,318Total faculty count266,3921,530821260344Sources: Snapshot 2000 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/shapshot/2000/state.html), school-level AEIS data (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/campus.search.html). As with charter school student populations, charter school faculties are more heavily comprised of minority teachers than are faculties of traditional public schools. It is interesting to compare Table V.8 with Table V.4, which presents racial/ethnic compositions of the aggregate charter school student population. Although Hispanics are the second-largest component of the charter school student population (38 percent), they comprise the smallest proportion of charter school faculties (17 percent). Whites, in contrast, who comprise the smallest proportion of the student population (22 percent), are the largest component of charter school faculties (43 percent). African American faculty percentages (38 percent) are very close to the percentages for African American students (39 percent). Whites are most concentrated on the faculties of charter schools enrolling less than 75 percent at-risk students, though they are nearly as concentrated among faculties of schools enrolling 75 percent or more at-risk students. African Americans are most heavily concentrated on the faculties of the 75 Percent Rule schools, where they constitute the majority of all faculty (59 percent). Student-teacher ratios in charter schools are slightly higher than ratios in traditional public schools. Student-teacher ratios are similar across the three types of charter schools addressed in this report. In contrast, student-teacher ratios reported in the third-year charter school evaluation report were much lower in the schools serving less at risk students. The average salaries of charter school teachers are considerably lower than those of teachers in Texas traditional public schools. Part of the salary differences may be accounted for by the relative inexperience of charter school teachers. The salary gap (about $10,000/year) is even greater than the disparity reported in the third-year evaluation (about $7,500/year). Teachers in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools are paid considerably less than teachers in the schools in the other two charter school categories. Summary Student demographics reported in the fourth-year evaluation generally parallel student data reported in previous evaluation reports. In the charter school population, compared to the student population of Texas traditional public schools, White students are under-represented and African American students are over-represented. Although the percentage of Hispanic students in charter schools is comparable to the percentage in traditional public schools, these students are heavily concentrated in charter schools with more than 75 percent at-risk students. Charter schools in Texas enroll a high percentage of at-risk studentshowever, they have low percentages of students from other special populations (limited English proficient, special education, and gifted and talented). Charter school teachers are paid considerably less than teachers in traditional public schools in Texas. Although White students represent the smallest percentage of the three major racial/ethnic groups in Texas charter schools, the opposite trend is true for charter school faculties. White teachers comprise a larger percentage of charter school faculties compared to Hispanic and African American teachers. The smallest percentage of charter school teachers are Hispanic, even though the largest percentage of charter school students are Hispanic. Section VI: Student Satisfaction An important part of a schools success is the satisfaction of students attending the school. Students are more likely to support schools that provide a safe and friendly atmosphere, with teaching and coursework fitting their needs and abilities. To learn how well the Texas open-enrollment charter schools are meeting the needs of students, the evaluation team surveyed junior and senior high school charter school students. During October 2000, surveys were mailed to all charter schools with grades 7 through 12 (N=110). The self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed by teachers and completed by students during class time. A total of 62 schools returned completed surveys, giving a school-level response rate of 56.4 percent. Regardless of the size of the student population, no school received more than 100 blank questionnaires; therefore, larger schools tended to have a smaller proportion of their students responding. Surveyed schools were divided into three groups: 75 Percent Rule charter schools, open-enrollment charter schools with at least 75 percent of students classified as at-risk, and open-enrollment charter schools with less than 75 percent of students classified as at-risk. Twelve of the 38 75 Percent Rule schools returned completed surveys (a response rate of 31.6 percent), 15 of the 22 open-enrollment schools serving primarily at-risk students returned surveys (a response rate of 68.2 percent), while 35 of the 47 schools serving fewer at-risk students returned completed surveys (a response rate of 74.5 percent). Table VI.1 shows the weights used to give each school proportional representation in the sample. Because the survey was conducted during the early months of the 2000-01 academic year, for the purposes of this report, we are including only those students who attended the school during the 1999-00 academic year. Table VI.1 Distribution of Responses across Schools and Weights Used to Balance Responses SchoolNumber Students EnrolledOriginal Number of ResponsesPercent of Students RespondingWeightWeighted Number of Responses75% Rule Schools (N=12)Amigos Por Vida24383.34.2534Calvin Nelms534992.40.157Crossroads Community Ed. Center7568.01.7511Eagle Project Tyler44920.40.686Faith Family Academy Oak Cliff398348.51.6456Fruit of Excellence441227.30.516Guardian Angel Performance541425.90.548I Am That I Am Academy632234.90.409Radiance Academy of Learning27282.94.7638Ranch Academy42819.00.736Southwest High School320278.41.6645Valley High1191714.31.6428Open-Enrollment e" 75 % AtRisk Students (N=15)Academy of Transitional Studies2125224.50.5730Cedar Ridge281035.70.394Coastal Bend Youth City461532.60.436Dallas Can!747395.22.68105East Texas522751.90.277Higgs-Carter-King Gifted/Talented175148.01.7525Honors Academy397102.55.5656Houston Can!3203811.91.1845John H. Wood1022221.60.6514Kipp, Inc.6827811.41.2295Richard MillburnCorpus Christi1263527.80.5018Richard MillburnMidland 452146.70.306Technology Education Center1404230.00.4720Texas Serenity Academy19421.00.663University Center1061413.21.0615 Table VI.1, continued Distribution of Responses across Schools and Weights Used to Balance Responses SchoolNumber Students EnrolledOriginal Number of ResponsesPercent of Students RespondingWeightWeighted Number of ResponsesOpen-Enrollment < 75% At-Risk Students (N=35)Academy of Skills & Knowledge842327.40.5112American Youth Works CS (AIL)233177.31.9233Arlington Classics Academy311237.41.8943Blessed Sacrament Academy1842614.11.0026Bright Ideas66812.11.159Burnham Wood1151412.21.1516Career Plus Learning Academy23834.80.403Eagle Advantage School1042625.00.5615Ed White School for Education Enhancement1531912.41.1321Encino School7014200.7010Erath Excels! Academy, Inc.824048.80.2912Gabriel Tafolla912935.80.4413Gateway (Student Alt. Program)1182016.90.8317Jean Massieu Academy392256.40.256Katherine Ann Porter611727.90.509Life CharterOak Cliff5686411.31.2479Midland Academy586569.61.4682Mid-Valley Academy511427.40.517Nancy Ney481327.10.527North Hills4094611.21.2457NYOS1354634.10.4119Odyssey Academy17374.03.4624One-Stop Multiservice179179.51.4725Paso Del Norte1486241.90.3320Pineywoods Community Academy2083717.80.7929Positive Solutions1562516.00.8722Richard MillburnKilleen1052120.00.7015Richard MillburnLubbock642742.10.339Raul Yzaguirre School for Success5867412.61.1182School of Excellence4955811.71.1969Sentry Technology Prep26210.436.6837South Plains1431711.91.1820Texas Empowerment Academy622337.10.389TOVAS43613.91.006Transformative1062220.70.6715Total15771577 Overall, as seen in Table VI.2, about a quarter of the students responding to the survey were 12 or younger (26.6 percent), slightly under half were between the ages of 13 and 17 (42.8 percent), and 16.2 percent were 18 or older. Notable differences emerged between students in the 75 Percent Rule charters schools, charter schools serving primarily at-risk students, and the charter schools serving fewer at-risk students. A quarter (23.2 percent) of responding students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students were at least 18 years of age, as compared to 16.1 percent in the charter schools with fewer at-risk students and 14.8 percent in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools. Conversely, there were a greater number of younger respondents in charter schools with fewer at-risk students (32.6 percent 12 or younger) than in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools (21.8 percent) and charter schools with primarily at-risk students (15.3 percent). The overall sample was 47.6 percent male, which is consistent with percentages in 75 Percent Rule charter schools (47.3 percent), but there were proportionately fewer males in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (42 percent) and proportionately more in the charter schools with fewer at-risk students (50.5 percent). Although proportionately more students were enrolled in GED programs at charter schools with primarily at-risk students (8.7 percent) than charter schools with fewer at-risk students (5.1 percent), the striking difference is the comparison with 75 Percent Rule charter schools (0.4 percent). Respondents from charter schools with fewer at-risk students were more likely to be in middle school (46.7 percent) than were respondents in either charter schools with primarily at-risk students (30 percent) or 75 Percent Rule charter schools (38.7 percent). There were small percentages of White (non-Hispanic) students across all types of schools (21.2 percent), but percentages were even lower in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (11.1 percent) and 75 Percent Rule charter schools (12.4) compared to charter schools with fewer at-risk students (30.6 percent). Hispanics were the largest minority group, and their proportions (about half of students) differed little across the three types of schools (see Table VI.2). There were far less African American students in the sample of charter schools with fewer at-risk students (13.1 percent), compared to charter schools with primarily at-risk students (27.1 percent) or 75 Percent Rule charter schools (34 percent). In sum, there were important student demographic differences by charter school type. Thus, when comparing the responses, it is important to remember that students differed by age, at-risk status, and racial/ethnic background. Table VI.2 Characteristics of Samples, Weighted CharacteristicPercentage 75% Rule RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr e" 75% RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr< 75% RespondentsOverall Percentage RespondentsRace Hispanic49.055.247.047.5 African American34.027.113.119.6 White12.411.130.621.2 Other/NA4.66.59.311.7Gender Female52.758.049.552.4 Male47.342.050.547.6Age Percent 12 and under21.815.332.626.6 Percent 13 to 1742.8 Percent 18 and over14.823.216.116.2Grade Level Middle (grades 6,7,8)38.730.046.740.7 High (9,10,11,12)60.961.248.253.9 GED0.48.75.15.4 School Choice, Interest, and Future Plans Responding students reported information on their school choices. One question asked, If you had not come to this school, what school would you probably have attended this year? The majority of students (62.9 percent) would have attended a traditional public school, with 82.3 percent of 75 Percent Rule charter school students, 75.7 percent of students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students, and 72.8 percent of students in charter schools with less at-risk students saying they would have attended a traditional public school. About 10 percent of students said they would not be in school. Students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools were less likely than others to say they would have dropped out of school (7.1 percent, as compared to 12 percent of those in schools serving primarily at-risk students and 14.2 percent in schools with less at-risk students). Interestingly, 16.5 percent did not know what they would have done. Uncertainty about future plans was more common for students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (20.8 percent) and charter schools with less at-risk students (16.5 percent) compared to students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools (7.8 percent). Students also rated their interest in school work on a four-point scale ranging from very interested to not at all interested. For the most part, students were interested in doing schoolwork (45.3 percent said interested), but only a quarter were very interested (27.2 percent) in schoolwork. Surprisingly, students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students were less likely to say they are very interested in schoolwork (21.7 percent) than students in either charter schools with primarily at-risk students (35.4 percent) or 75 Percent Rule charter schools (30.5 percent). Students in charter schools with less at-risk students were also more likely to say they are not at all interested in schoolwork (10.8 percent) than students either in schools with primarily at-risk students (2.3 percent) or 75 Percent Rule schools (3.7 percent). Table VI.3 displays charter school students post-high school plans. The most commonly expressed post-graduation plan was the desire to go to a four-year college (40.9 percent), and the percent of students with this goal was similar across the three school types. In fact, regardless of the type of school attended, there was little difference in students post-high school plans (e.g., community college, military, etc.). Table VI.3 Post-High School Plans of Students in Samples, Weighted PlanPercentage 75% Rule RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr e" 75% RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr < 75% RespondentsGo to 4-year college36.642.941.1Go to community college10.314.910.8Get a job12.511.610.0Go to technical school7.65.58.9Join the military7.66.77.8Other9.86.58.9Dont know15.611.812.6 Factors Influencing the Choice of Charter Schools When making the decision to attend a charter school, 35 percent of respondents made the choice on their own. As shown in Table VI.4, nearly half (46.5 percent) of the students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students decided on their own, but just a third of the students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools (33.6 percent) and charter schools with fewer at-risk students (29.6 percent) made the decision alone. Students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools and charter schools with fewer at-risk students were more likely to be there because their families made the decision (39.3 percent and 31.8 percent, respectively) or because it was a mutual decision between the students and their families (17 percent and 30.9 percent, respectively) compared with students in schools serving primarily at-risk students (13.3 percent noting family decision and 24.8 percent citing a mutual decision). Fifteen percent of respondents in charter schools with primarily at-risk students were there because someone else suggested they attend, as opposed to 10.1 percent of 75 Percent Rule and 7.7 percent in schools with fewer at-risk students. Table VI.4 Influence to Attend Charter School, Weighted Whose idea?Percentage 75% Rule RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr e" 75% RespondentsPercentage Open-Enr < 75% RespondentsMy idea33.646.529.6My family s idea39.313.331.8My family and I decided together17.024.830.9Someone else s idea10.115.07.7 There are a number of reasons a student may choose to attend a charter school. As seen in Table VI.5, the survey offered students eight possible reasons and asked them to rate the importance of each in their decision to attend the charter school. Regardless of charter school type, the most important reason for choosing charter schools was the belief that the school offered classes that best fit the students needs. However, this was somewhat more important for students attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students (86.1 percent said very important or important) and charter schools with fewer at-risk students (82.2 percent) than students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools (73.7 percent). Also of great importance to the students was the attention they feel they receive from their charter school teachers (68.3 percent of 75 Percent Rule, 72.4 percent of charter schools with primarily at-risk students, and 71.0 percent of charter schools serving fewer at-risk students said very important or important). The belief that the charter school has better teachers was important to students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students and with fewer at-risk students, but not as much for 75 Percent Rule charter school students. Parents desire for students to attend charter schools was relevant for students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students and 75 Percent Rule schools, but less so for students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students. The location of the school, that there were too many trouble-makers in the previously attended school, or whether the student had been in trouble in the previous school were important to some students but not to most. Finally, no respondents stated that it was particularly important that friends attended the charter, although to the extent that it mattered, it was more important to students in 75 Percent Rule and charter schools with fewer at-risk students than to students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students. Table VI.5 Reasons Students Chose a Charter School (as Percent of Respondents), Weighted School CharacteristicVery ImportantImportantNot Very ImportantNot ImportantClasses fit needs better***75%Rule40.233.512.014.3Open-Enr e" 75%47.338.88.45.5Open-Enr < 75%48.533.710.37.4More attention from teachers75%Rule30.537.812.918.9Open-Enr e" 75%42.130.312.714.9Open-Enr < 75%38.832.212.216.7Better teachers*75%Rule28.330.723.817.2Open-Enr e" 75%32.637.215.614.7Open-Enr < 75%33.434.615.216.8Parent persuasion***75%Rule31.728.118.921.3Open-Enr e" 75%25.623.524.027.0Open-Enr < 75%35.632.216.415.9Better location*75%Rule24.126.527.322.1Open-Enr e" 75%18.227.924.729.2Open-Enr < 75%19.126.431.822.6Bothered by trouble-makers at previous school**75%Rule17.718.919.743.8Open-Enr e" 75%21.121.323.833.8Open-Enr < 75%21.319.627.731.4Student in trouble at previous school75%Rule20.220.614.145.2Open-Enr e" 75%22.416.317.244.1Open-Enr < 75%22.912.617.347.3Friends going to charter school75%Rule9.18.321.461.1Open-Enr e" 75%2.95.218.373.6Open-Enr < 75%10.911.122.755.2* significant difference at p<.05, ** significant at p<.01, *** significant at p<.001 Evaluation of Charter Schools All respondents were asked a number of questions to gauge their satisfaction with their charter school. At the most basic level, students were asked simply, how satisfied are you with this school? The majority of the students were satisfied with their charter school (55.6 percent), and only 13 percent were dissatisfied. It is important to remember that the students represented in the fall 2000 sample had chosen to return to the school after the 1999-00 school year; thus, students surveyed may be more satisfied than students during spring 2000 (who may or may not have chosen to return to the charter school in fall 2000). Students attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students were much more likely than other students to be very satisfied with their schools (43.3 percent as compared to 29.9 percent of students in charter schools serving less at-risk students and 14.5 percent in 75 Percent Rule charter schools). Conversely, students in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools were more likely than other students to be dissatisfied with their schools (20.2 percent as compared to 14.1 percent of student in charter schools with less at-risk students and 6.5 percent in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students). Students were also asked to compare their charter school with the school they would have attended had they not been at the charter school. Results are displayed in Table VI.6. The majority of respondents felt that their charter school was better than their other school because the charter school has teachers who care about the students (61.2 percent), it has good teachers overall (60.1 percent), it has smaller classes (59.8 percent), and the charter teachers give more personal attention to students (57.8 percent). Although the majority of students did not believe the charter school was worse than their other school, a few thought their charter schools closeness to home (26.2 percent), its choice in class offerings (16.5 percent), and the order in the classroom (13.8 percent) were worse. Table VI.6 Students Comparison of Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended (as a Percent of Respondents), Weighted School CharacteristicBetterSameWorseNot SureTeachers care about student* 75% Rule 57.2 31.6 3.2 8.0 Open-Enr e" 75% 66.1 22.4 6.7 4.7 Open-Enr < 75% 59.8 28.5 6.0 5.6Good teachers*** 75% Rule 50.4 33.6 11.2 4.8 Open-Enr e" 75% 66.1 27.1 2.5 4.3 Open-Enr < 75% 59.8 28.8 6.8 4.6Small class size* 75% Rule 62.4 24.8 10.0 2.8 Open-Enr e" 75% 56.2 32.6 6.3 4.9 Open-Enr < 75% 60.8 25.3 9.3 4.6Personal attention from teachers 75% Rule 53.6 31.5 6.5 8.5 Open-Enr e" 75% 63.1 26.8 5.2 5.0 Open-Enr < 75% 56.2 30.0 7.4 6.4Principal cares about student*** 75% Rule 45.0 27.5 12.7 14.7 Open-Enr e" 75% 62.6 23.4 7.9 6.1 Open-Enr < 75% 52.4 30.4 9.6 7.5Feeling safe*** 75% Rule 37.9 45.4 7.5 9.2 Open-Enr e" 75% 57.6 35.4 4.3 2.7 Open-Enr < 75% 52.2 37.7 7.0 3.2Interesting classes*** 75% Rule 34.4 41.3 18.2 6.1 Open-Enr e" 75% 53.5 34.8 5.8 6.1 Open-Enr < 75% 51.9 29.6 12.8 5.7Feeling of belonging*** 75% Rule 34.9 43.4 6.0 15.7 Open-Enr e" 75% 52.8 36.0 7.3 3.9 Open-Enr < 75% 50.2 34.5 10.8 4.5Choice of classes*** 75% Rule 23.5 37.7 24.3 14.6  Open-Enr e" 75% 44.1 39.9 9.0 7.0 Open-Enr < 75% 49.0 25.8 18.1 7.0Order in classroom*** 75% Rule 32.1 43.5 14.6 9.8  Open-Enr e" 75% 50.7 36.4 8.8 4.1 Open-Enr < 75% 41.5 37.6 16.3 4.5Close to home*** 75% Rule 47.4 32.9 17.3 2.4 Open-Enr e" 75% 33.8 35.4 24.1 6.8 Open-Enr < 75% 32.7 33.2 29.9 4.2* Significant difference at p<.05, ** significant at p<.01, *** significant at p<.001 Perceptions of charter and previous schools varied depending on which type of charter school the students attended. Students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students were more likely than other students to feel that the charter school was better with respect to (a) teachers concern for students, (b) the overall quality of the teachers, (c) the personal attention teachers give to the students, (d) the concern principals give to the students, and (e) the order in the classroom. Students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students were less likely than other students to believe charter schools did better than other schools in keeping class sizes small. Students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools were less likely than other students to find that charter schools did a better job at (a) making students feel safe, (b) offering interesting classes, (c) making students feel like they belong, and (d) offering a good choice of classes. Charter schools were more likely to be closer to home for 75 Percent Rule charter school students than for other charter school students. Charter school students provided a grade for the charter school ranging from an A to an F. Table VI.7 gives the grade distribution for students in the three types of schools. When grading their charter schools, a third of the respondents (33.6 percent) gave an A, and a third (33.5 percent) gave a B. Less than five percent of students gave their charter school a failing grade; however, differences by type of school did emerge. Close to half of students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (42.8 percent) gave their charter school an A, about a third (34.6 percent) of students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students gave an A, but only 13.6 percent of students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools gave their charter school an A. Although the percentages are not high, students in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools (9.5 percent) were twice as likely as students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students (4.5 percent) and three times as likely as students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (2.7 percent) to give charter their school a failing grade. Table VI.7 Grades Respondents Give to Their Charter Schools (as Percent of Responses) GradePercentage of 75% Rule RespondentsPercentage of Open-Enr e" 75% RespondentsPercentage of Open-Enr < 75% RespondentsA 13.6 42.8 34.6B 30.9 33.5 34.3C 24.3 9.7 14.8D 9.5 4.3 6.0F 9.5 2.7 4.5Dont know 12.3 7.0 5.8 As a final measure of student satisfaction with the charter school, respondents indicated whether they planned on staying in the school the following year (see Table VI.8). A third of the respondents attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students (36.7 percent), 21.2 percent of 75 Percent Rule charter school students, and 15.2 percent of students charter schools with fewer at-risk students planned to graduate. Among those respondents not graduating, more than half of students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students (53 percent) and charter schools with fewer at-risk students (56.9 percent) intended to return to their charter schools, but just over a quarter (27.9 percent) in 75 Percent Rule charter schools intended to return. Students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools were twice as likely as other students to say they would switch, and nearly half (42.6 percent) did not know what they would do (as compared to 32.2 percent in schools with primarily at-risk school students and 28.6 percent in schools with fewer at-risk school students). Table VI.8 Students Plans for the Upcoming School Year (as Percent of Responses), Weighted Plan for Next YearPercentage of 75% Rule RespondentsPercentage of Open-Enr e" 75% RespondentsPercentage of Open-Enr < 75% Respondents I will graduate 21.2 36.7 15.2Among those eligible I will return to charter 27.9 53.0 56.9 I will switch schools 29.4 14.7 14.5 I dont know yet 42.6 32.2 28.6 Student Satisfaction over Time In this section, changes in students level of satisfaction with the charter schools over the past four years are examined. Only first generation schools are represented in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 academic years, and a number of schools were added to the samples in 1998-99 and 1999-00. Furthermore, not all schools continually participated in each years survey. In previous reports, various schools considered at-risk are now categorized as charter schools with fewer at-risk students. In addition, the 75 Percent Rule charter school category was not used in previous reports. Thus, the data presented in this section do not correspond exactly with data presented in earlier reports. No schools included in the 1996-97 or 1997-98 surveys are categorized as 75 Percent Rule; therefore, responses relevant to that category can only be examined across two years (1998-99 and 1999-00). Charter Schools with Primarily At-Risk Students Demographically, the four samples of students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students are similar in some respects, but quite different in others. As shown in Table VI.9, the percent of sampled students who are Hispanic has remained relatively stable, as has the percent who are White. However, there were fewer African American students surveyed in 1996-97 as compared to later years. In 1999-00, there were substantially fewer male students surveyed than in previous years. Finally, students sampled in 1999-00 are younger than in previous years. Thus, the samples of students attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students across the years are not completely comparable. Table VI.9 Characteristics of Samples from Charter Schools Serving Primarily At-Risk Students (Open-Enr e" 75%), (as Percentages) Open-Enr e" 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00RaceHispanic56.146.953.555.2African American9.139.936.427.1White8.37.95.211.1Other/NA26.55.34.96.5GenderFemale47.851.148.658.0Male52.248.151.442.0AgePercent 12 or under0.82.61.115.3Percent 18 or under48.563.638.423.2 Based on comparative data displayed in Table VI.10, students satisfaction has remained relatively high throughout the four school years examined. Although satisfaction was greatest during the first year, the level of satisfaction has changed very little since 1997-98. For example, 42.4 percent of the students said they were very satisfied in 1997-98, 35.2 percent were very satisfied is 1998-99, and 43.3 percent were very satisfied in 1999-00. Likewise the grade that students gave their charter school has remained consistently high, with the overwhelming majority giving a grade of either A or B. A third way to gauge satisfaction is to ask whether students intend to continue at the school the following year. Over half of the non-graduating students in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students expressed an intention to return to the charter school, and this percentage has not changed over time. Finally, although not specific to student satisfaction, per se, the post-graduation intentions of the students can also be examined. One might expect that students who enjoy learning would want to continue to higher education. In 1999-00, for the first time, close to half of the students expressed an intention to attend a four-year college. In past years, about a quarter of the students anticipated attending a four-year college, with an equal number planning on enrolling in a community college. Also, in 1999-00, only half as many students as in previous years planned on going straight into the workforce after graduation. To some extent, these differences in post-graduate expectations may be accounted for by the younger students included in the sample. Students further from graduation may have different expectations than those facing graduation in the near future. Table VI.10 Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Serving Primarily At-Risk Students, (as Percentages) Open-Enr e" 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00Satisfaction with charter schoolVery satisfied58.642.435.243.3Satisfied35.355.058.450.1Not satisfied6.02.66.46.5Grade for charter*A43.443.330.246.0B39.543.334.436.0C8.511.312.410.4D4.72.07.24.6F3.90.15.83.0Plans for next yearGraduate41.940.041.036.7Among eligibleReturn to charter53.254.359.953.0Switch schools7.68.09.414.7Don't know39.237.730.732.2Plans after graduationGet a job23.719.920.911.6Tech school6.110.411.05.5Community college30.523.823.914.94-year college23.722.924.042.9Join the military5.311.77.46.7Not sure10.711.312.811.8* Includes only those who gave a grade. The not sure responses have been omitted. Across the four years, students assertions that their charter schools qualities are better than non-charter schools has changed very little, as seen in Table VI.11. The most significant quality that students believed charter schools offer them above non-charter schools is teachers. For the first three school years, students rated charter schools more positively in terms of the smaller class sizes. In 1999-00, fewer (but still a majority) said that class sizes were smaller in the charter school than in other schools. In contrast, more students in 1999-00 than in previous years thought that charter school principals cared more for their students than principals in other schools, and students in 1999-00 reported that they feel safer in their charter school than they felt in previous schools attended. Table VI.11 Percentage of Students in Charter Schools with Primarily At-Risk Students Who Say Charter is Better than School They Would Have Attended Open-Enr e" 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00Teachers care about students70.166.548.466.1Good teachers70.669.456.666.1Small class size63.265.963.256.2Personal attention from teachers69.965.151.563.1Principal cares about students46.338.439.862.6Feeling safe45.633.542.657.6Interesting classes52.631.440.353.5Feeling of belonging58.148.341.652.8Choice of classes55.639.244.644.1Order in classroom51.853.842.850.7Close to home21.918.732.533.8 Charter Schools with Fewer At-Risk Students As shown in Table VI.12, the samples of students attending charter schools with fewer at-risk students also differ from year to year. The 1997-98 sample was anomalous, with an apparent over-representation of Hispanic students and under-representation of African American and White students. Students in the 1999-00 samples were younger in the most recent year as compared to the previous years. Table VI.12 Characteristics of Samples from Charter Schools Serving Fewer At-Risk Students (as Percentages) Open-Enr < 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00RaceHispanic58.286.632.047.0African American16.33.011.713.1White20.77.442.030.6Other/NA4.83.014.39.3GenderFemale55.849.654.249.5Male44.250.445.850.5AgePercent 12 or under5.311.112.832.6Percent 18 or under31.340.614.416.1 Although less satisfied in general than students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students, students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students were relatively consistent in their satisfaction with their schools. The majority of students, regardless of school year, were satisfied, albeit not enthusiastic. Table VI.13 displays exact percentages. The overwhelming majority of students continued to give their school an A or B grade. Although the percentage giving their school a failing grade has increased in the past two years, it still remained quite low. The majority of non-graduating students intended to return to charter schools, and this percentage has not changed over time. Students post-graduation plans have changed little over the four years; the largest group intended to attend a four-year college. Table VI.13 Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Serving Fewer At-Risk Students, (as Percentages) Open-Enr < 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00Satisfaction with charter schoolVery satisfied37.829.520.429.9Satisfied47.956.458.156.0Not satisfied14.313.221.614.1Grade for charter*A34.330.223.736.7B43.338.334.336.4C11.718.321.315.7D6.710.010.4 6.4F3.93.210.34.8Plans for next yearGraduate20.723.514.915.2Among eligibleReturn to charter57.157.057.456.9 Switch schools17.614.015.514.5Dont know25.329.027.128.6Plans after graduationGet a job17.317.010.610.0Tech school8.15.77.88.9Community college13.920.013.610.84-year college46.835.747.9 41.1 Join the military4.410.07.77.8Not sure9.611.812.412.6* Includes only those who gave a grade. The not sure responses have been omitted. Over the years, students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students have rated their school as better than previous schools with respect to a number of characteristics. Table VI.14 presents the results. For the most part, these characteristics have changed little over the four years. Students views on the quality of teachers, the size of classes, the number of interesting classes, their feeling of belonging, and the proximity to their homes has remained relatively stable. In 1999-00, students in the most recent year rated their charter school more highly than in past years with respect to the concern their principal shows for them, the safety they feel in the school, the choices of classes, and order in the classroom. Compared to 1996-97, students in 1999-00 were less likely to note that teachers care, and they feel they receive less personal attention from their teachers. Table VI.14 Percentage of Students in Charter Schools with Fewer At-Risk Students Who Say Charter School is Better than School They Would Have Attended Open-Enr < 75%Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-00Teachers care about students67.148.952.059.8Good teachers66.353.648.259.8Small class size75.863.259.660.8Personal attention from teachers66.559.052.256.2Principal cares about students43.624.041.452.4Feeling safe40.929.944.452.2Interesting classes55.244.844.951.9Feeling of belonging55.139.839.550.2Choice of classes39.544.335.349.0Order in classroom38.429.934.241.5Close to home24.325.730.232.7 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools As seen in Table VI.15, the data on 75 Percent Rule charter schools are limited to the previous two school years, and unfortunately, there were only two schools represented in the 1998-99 data. Given the limitations of the data, the conclusions drawn must be taken as merely suggestive. The samples of students in the 75 Percent Rule charter schools differ substantially across the two years. The 1998-99 sample has far fewer Hispanic and more African American students than the 1999-00 sample. Although both samples are similar in the proportion of young students surveyed, there were no older students included in the 1998-99 sample. Table VI.15 Characteristics of 75 Percent Rule Charter School Samples (as Percentages) 75% RuleCharacteristics1998-991999-00Race Hispanic10.949.0 African American62.534.0 White15.612.4 Other/NA11.04.6Gender Female54.052.7 Male46.047.3Age Percent 12 or under23.921.8 Percent 18 or over0.014.8 Although there was not a substantial increase in the proportion of students who were very satisfied with the schools, there was a substantial decrease in the proportion of students dissatisfied with the schools. Table VI.16 displays the results. Schools were more likely to get a B or C grade in 1999-00 than they had been in 1998-99 but were much less likely to get an F or a D rating from students. Over a quarter of the eligible students in 1999-00 reported that they intended to return to the charter the next year. This was nearly double the percentage from 1998-99. Thus, although satisfaction remains lower than among other types of charter schools, it seems to have increased over the two-year period. Student respondents in the 1999-00 sample were further along in their high school education (21 percent were planning to graduate as compared to just 3 percent in 1998-99), and it is therefore not surprising that fewer intended to attend a 4-year college. The percent of students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools 1999-00 intending to go on to a 4-year college closely matches the percent of students in other open-enrollment charter schools. Table VI.16 Student Satisfaction with 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools (as Percentages) 75% RuleCharacteristics1998-991999-00Satisfaction with charter school Very satisfied9.414.5 Satisfied40.665.3 Not satisfied50.020.2Grade for charter* A13.815.5 B18.535.2 C16.927.7 D15.410.8 F30.810.8Plans for next year Graduate3.021.1Among eligible Return to charter15.627.9 Switch schools45.329.4 Dont know39.142.6Plans after graduation Get a job16.912.5 Tech school6.17.6 Community college10.810.3 4-year college49.236.6 Join the military9.27.6 Not sure7.815.6* Includes only those who gave a grade. The not sure responses have been omitted. In almost all respects, students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools in 1999-00 rated their school better relative to non-charter schools than had students in 1998-99. Table VI.17 presents the percentages across the two years. Many more students saw the charter better in terms of having teachers who care, good teachers, small classes, personalized attention from teachers, principals who care, greater safety, and proximity to home. The only characteristic for which 1999-00 schools were rated significantly lower than in 1998-99 was the choice of available classes. Table VI.17 Percentage of Students in 75 Percent Rule Charter Schools Who Say Charter School is Better than School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 75% RuleCharacteristics1998-991999-00Teachers care about students35.457.2Good teachers40.950.4Small class size29.262.4Personal attention from teachers27.753.6Principal cares about students25.045.0Feeling safe21.537.9Interesting classes36.434.4Feeling of belonging28.634.9Choice of classes30.623.5Order in classroom26.232.1Close to home29.247.4 Summary Charter schools receive strong support from students. The vast majority of students are either satisfied or very satisfied with their school, and among those eligible, a majority intends to return to their charter schools. The level of satisfaction, however, varies by charter school type. Students attending general open-enrollment schools tend to be more satisfied than students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools, and students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools are much less likely to report that they intend to return to the school. The most satisfied students appear to be those attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students. Interestingly, over time student satisfaction with open-enrollment schools (both those serving primarily at-risk and fewer at-risk students) has changed very little, while satisfaction among 75 Percent Rule charter school students has increased. Even so, trends for 75 Percent Rule charter schools are suspect due to the limited number of schools in 1998-99. Students choose to attend charter schools for a number of reasons, but the most important reason is that the school fits their specific academic needs. This is the case regardless of school type. Also, students in all types of charter schools expect to receive more personalized attention from their charter school teachers than they had received in previous schools. Students in general open-enrollment schools chose to attend the school because they believe it offers better quality teachers; although important, this is less a factor for students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools. Finally, and perhaps most telling, students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools and in charter schools with fewer at-risk students, but not students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students, switch to charter schools because their parents want them to do so. In many respects, charter schools seem to be meeting the expectations of the students. Students report that their charter school teachers care more about them than their previous teachers had and that the overall teaching staff is better than in other schools. They find class sizes smaller in charter schools than in other schools, and they feel that they receive more personalized attention from teachers and principals. However, students in general open-enrollment charter schools are much more likely than students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools to identify positive characteristics of their school. Of the eleven characteristics included in the survey, students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students rated their charter school as being better than non-charter schools on nine characteristics. Students in charter schools with fewer at-risk students rated the charter better on eight characteristics. However, students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools rated their charter school as better on only four of the characteristics (caring teachers, good teachers, attentive teachers, and small classes). Finally, more than half of the surveyed students even students in 75 Percent Rule charter schools reported that they intended to pursue some higher education after they finish high school. Students in charter schools with primarily at-risk students, in fact, were most likely to say they will attend either a 4-year college, a community college, or a technical school when they graduate. Section VII: Parental Participation and Satisfaction Introduction To explore parental participation and levels of satisfaction, the evaluation team developed a telephone survey of charter school parents. The survey seeks to gain a better understanding of why parents choose to send their children to charter schools, the characteristics of parents who send their children to charter schools, and the level of satisfaction with the newly established charter schools. Similar surveys were administered to three parent samples: parents of students in open-enrollment charter schools and comparison groups drawn from parents of children attending a campus charter school and parents of children attending traditional public schools. The survey was administered by the Survey Research Center at the University of Houston. The open-enrollment charter parent sample was drawn from student rosters of charter schools that voluntarily submitted data files to evaluators, and 1,232 parents completed surveys. In addition, 331 parents of children in one Texas districts campus charter schools completed surveys. The responses of these parents provide another point of comparison for understanding the satisfaction levels, motivation, and attitudes of open-enrollment charter school parents. The traditional school comparison sample was drawn from student rosters of schools in two large urban Texas school districts with multiple charter schools within their boundaries. Evaluators selected traditional schools that were geographically close to open-enrollment charter schools. In order to compare the characteristics of choosing and non-choosing parents, traditional school sample households were in close proximity to charter schools that serve the same grade levels as the schools attended by children in those households. Thus, the 613 parents in the comparison group of traditional schools could have sent their children to charter schools if they had opted to do so. This traditional school comparison group allows for comparisons of the characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction levels of charter school parents with parents whose children remain in traditional public schools. Evaluators obtained parent subjects for the survey through student roster data requests to charter schools and traditional public school districts. The final sampling frame, however, included only districts that were willing to participate in the study and to provide student-level rosters for extracting the parent sample. The necessity of relying on volunteers creates uncertainty about the extent to which the parent samples represent the overall parent populations, and this potential bias limits the interpretation of parent survey findings. Therefore, evaluators offer descriptive information, when possible, to show how the samples are consistent with parent groups as a whole. Sample Characteristics Tables VII.1 and VII.2 present data on the ethnicity, education levels, and incomes of open-enrollment charter school parents, the campus charter parent sample, and parents the in traditional school comparison group. Table VII.1 Parent Samples Race/Ethnicity (percentages) Race/EthnicityTexas Charter SchoolsOpen-Enr Charter SampleCampus Charter Sample*Traditional School SampleAfrican American3937221Hispanic38342141White22226533Other36127* Parents were selected from one districts campus charter schoolsthus, the sample may not represent the parent population of all campus charters. Table VII.2 Parent Educational Attainment and Income Levels (percentages) Open-Enr Charter SampleCampus Charter Sample*Traditional School SampleEducational AttainmentGrade 8 or less5.45.214.4Grade 9-1112.73.311.4GED3.61.82.7High school graduate26.014.523.4Less than 2 years college16.27.615.9More than 2 years college16.113.67.2College degree17.135.518.9Graduate degree2.918.56.3Income LevelLess than $5,0003.73.30.4$5,000 9,9994.33.30.8$10,000 14,9996.56.63.8$15,000 19,9999.39.52.3$20,000 24,99911.411.77.3$25,000 34,99918.316.39.2$35,000 49,99923.620.114.9$50,000 74,99914.213.221.1More than $75,0008.715.940.2* Parents were selected from one districts campus charter schoolsthus, the sample may not represent the parent population of all campus charters. The open-enrollment charter school sample is consistent with overall Texas charter school student population in terms of racial and ethnic distributions. In previous evaluations, evaluators found it necessary to weight the open-enrollment charter parent and comparison parent samples to adjust for differences in race and ethnicity. Because the open-enrollment charter parent sample is similar to the states charter school student population, no weights are used in the fourth-year evaluation. The open-enrollment charter parent sample and comparison traditional school parent sample are relatively similar in terms of education and income; however, the two groups are somewhat dissimilar with respect to race. The comparison group has higher percentages of White and Hispanic parents and fewer African American parents than the sample of open-enrollment charter parents. In contrast, the campus charter parents differ markedly. The campus charter parent sample is predominantly White (65 percent) and Hispanic (21 percent), and the sample also has higher percentages of parents with college and advanced degrees. A higher percentage of parents in the campus charter sample report income levels exceeding $75,000. Because the ethnic composition, educational attainment, and income levels are unknown for parents of children enrolled in Texas open-enrollment charter campuses overall, there is no way to determine whether the sample is representative of the population of parents whose children attend campus charter schools. How Did Parents Find Out about Charter Schools? To determine how parents learned about the open-enrollment charter schools their children attend, the survey addressed the following questions: Is the public in general aware of charter schools? Do different kinds of parents find out about charter schools from different sources? Do the methods of publicizing charter schools lead to enrollments that are racially or socioeconomically distinctive? The results are presented in Table VII.3. Traditional school comparison group parents were asked if they had heard of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas, and the majority had not. Even though the sample was drawn from areas with abundant charter school options, only 40 percent reported they knew something about charter schools. Parents were also asked how they found out about the open-enrollment charter schools their children attend. Similarly, parents in the comparison group were asked if they knew of charter schools in their vicinity, and if so, how they became aware of them. A majority of open-enrollment charter parents find out about charter schools from informal sources friends and relatives. This finding is noteworthy because of well-established sociological research that finds such informal networks tend to be segregated by race and class. When information about open-enrollment charter schools is transmitted via these channels, one would expect that it would affect the racial-distinctiveness of charter schools. In contrast, a substantial percentage of traditional school comparison parents and campus charter parents find out about charter schools from traditional public schools, while a relatively small percentage of open-enrollment charter parents learn of charter schools from this source. Table VII.3 How Parents Find out about Charter Schools (Percentages) Information SourceOpen-Enr Charter Sample N=1,232Campus Charter Sample N=331Traditional School Sample N=240Friends or relatives53.327.831.9Teachers or public schools8.823.925.8Newspapers5.19.421.9Church4.60.61.0Television or radio3.61.510.0Private schools2.34.21.0Community center2.11.22.4Work1.15.12.9Internet0.91.23.3Other18.325.112.5 Factors Affecting the Decision to Choose Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Parents responded to a variety of questions regarding factors important in their school choice decisions. Parents were provided with a list of six attributes and rank-ordered the three top attributes based on importance in choosing the school in which their children were enrolled. The school attributes included: (a) high math and reading scores on standardized tests, (b) discipline, (c) location, (d) a student body that was ethnically diverse, (e) the teaching of moral values, and (f) school safety. These six attributes and percentages of parents choosing each as important are presented in Table VII.4. In examining open-enrollment charter parents most important reason for choosing a charter school, more cite the teaching of moral values than any other factor, followed by high test scores and better discipline. Open-enrollment charter parents were less likely to select safety, the location of the school, and a racially diverse student body as important in their school choice decisions. Traditional school comparison group parents and campus charter parents, however, cited high test scores as most important, followed by school safety and better discipline. While high test scores motivate school choice among parents in all samples, safety is not a primary influence in the selection of open-enrollment charter schools. In contrast, the importance open-enrollment charter parents place on the teaching of moral values does not emerge as a motivating factor in school choice for traditional school comparison parents and campus charter parents. Table VII.4 School Attributes Influencing Parents School Choices (Percentages) School AttributeMost Important2nd Most Important3rd Most ImportantAverageOpen-Enr Charter SampleTeaching moral values27.622.923.124.5High math/reading test scores23.023.017.221.1Better discipline21.822.119.421.1Safety12.613.118.714.8Location of charter school10.312.613.312.1Racial diversity4.76.48.36.5Campus Charter SampleHigh math/reading test scores43.423.018.828.4Better discipline16.720.317.918.3Safety19.817.217.518.2Teaching moral values7.021.517.915.5Racial diversity7.410.213.510.4Location of charter school5.87.814.49.3Traditional School SampleHigh math/reading test scores35.025.621.427.3Safety20.820.419.920.4Better discipline14.820.019.718.2Teaching moral values17.717.617.817.7Location of charter school7.28.313.19.5Racial diversity4.48.18.16.9 Parent Satisfaction with Previous Schools Open-enrollment and campus charter parents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their childrens previous schools, with ratings ranging from A to F. Table VII.5 displays the results for both groups. Open-enrollment charter parents give the schools their children previously attended much lower marks than those given by campus charter parents. For example, while approximately 45 percent of open-enrollment charter parents rated their childrens previous schools with and A or B, almost 70 percent of campus charter parents provided these ratings. In contrast, D or F ratings were provided by 30 percent of open-enrollment charter parents compared with 13 percent of campus charter parents. Table VII.5 Grades Assigned by Parents to Students Previous Schools (Percentages) GradeOpen-Enr Charter Sample N=1,103Campus Charter Sample N=325A21.835.4B24.132.3C24.319.1D15.18.3F14.64.9 To further explore parent satisfaction with their childrens previous schools, open-enrollment and campus charter parents rated specific aspects of those schools on a four-point scale ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Table VII.6 presents parents satisfaction ratings with the following school attributes: teachers, teaching moral values, the location of schools, discipline, parent-teacher relations, parent input into the running of the schools, and satisfaction with the background of students. Table VII.6 Parent Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Previous Schools (Percentages) CharacteristicVery SatisfiedSomewhat SatisfiedSomewhat DissatisfiedVery DissatisfiedOpen-Enr Charter SampleLocation55.929.35.98.8Parent-teacher relations37.129.011.322.5Discipline35.727.512.824.0Teachers35.632.012.819.6Teaching moral values35.028.312.324.4Background of students34.738.111.216.0Parent input in running school29.831.013.825.3Campus Charter SampleLocation74.720.43.11.9Parent-teacher relations55.926.910.56.8Teachers52.532.910.64.0Background of students51.629.110.78.7Teaching moral values48.534.18.98.5Discipline48.133.48.110.3Parent input in running school47.130.210.712.0 Open-enrollment charter parents were least satisfied with the amount of input parents had in school operation at previous schools, with 25 percent noting they were very dissatisfied. In addition, 20 percent or more open-enrollment charter parents reported being very dissatisfied with the teaching of moral values, discipline, parent-teacher relations, and teachers in their childrens previous schools. In contrast, less than 10 percent of campus charter parents provided very dissatisfied ratings for most school characteristics. Parent Satisfaction with Current Schools All parent comparison groups provided ratings for their childrens current schools, with ratings ranging from A to F. Table VII.7 provides each samples ratings for current schools as well as previous school ratings from open-enrollment and campus charter parents. The data show that open-enrollment and campus charter parents give their current schools higher ratings than those given to their previous schools. Both open-enrollment and campus charter parents are more likely to give the current charter schools their children attend an A compared to parents of students in traditional public schools. Campus charter school parents, however, assign higher grades to their current school than either the open-enrollment charter school parents or traditional school parents, with almost 94 percent providing A or B ratings for campus charter schools. Table VII.7 Grades Assigned to Previous and Current Schools (Percentages) GradeOpen-Enr Charter SampleCampus Charter SampleTraditional School Sample*PreviousCurrentPreviousCurrentCurrentA21.841.935.469.332.1B24.133.232.324.636.7C24.314.819.14.323.1D15.15.88.31.24.9F14.64.34.90.63.1* Only current ratings are provided for the traditional school because these parents have not removed their children from traditional public schools. All parent groups also provided ratings, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, to various characteristics of their childrens current schools. Table VII.8 presents parent approval ratings for specific characteristics of their childrens current charter schools. Open-enrollment charter parents are more likely to say that they are very satisfied with specific attributes of their current schools, while traditional school parents are considerably more likely to say that they are somewhat satisfied. Overall, open-enrollment charter parents are most satisfied with parent-teacher relations, teaching moral values, discipline, and teachers. Campus charter parents are most satisfied with the specific attributes of their charter schools. In every category, more than 90 percent of campus charter parents report that they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. Traditional parents are most satisfied with location, parent-teacher relations, and teachers. Table VII.8 Parent Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Current Schools (Percentages) CharacteristicVery SatisfiedSomewhat SatisfiedSomewhat DissatisfiedVery DissatisfiedOpen-Enr Charter SampleParent-teacher relations64.024.04.87.1Teaching moral values62.426.75.05.9Discipline61.625.36.17.0Teachers61.426.55.36.9Location57.529.07.26.3Parent input in running school54.129.47.29.3Background of students49.436.57.66.5Campus Charter SampleDiscipline78.018.02.41.5Teachers76.421.51.50.6Parent-teacher relations75.721.90.91.5Background of students75.222.51.31.0Parent input in running school73.523.12.50.9Teaching moral values71.725.12.31.0Location66.028.34.90.9Traditional School SampleLocation68.426.23.32.1Parent-teacher relations53.333.36.56.9Teachers48.738.87.15.4Discipline48.533.410.27.9Parent input in running school42.337.59.510.6Teaching moral values40.738.411.89.1Background of students39.045.510.74.8 Parent Participation in Schools Open-enrollment and campus charter parents were asked to identify the ways in which they participated in their childrens previous schools. In addition, all samples selected school activities in which they participate at their childrens current schools. As shown in Table VII.9, parents may participate through a number of school activities, including attendance at board meetings, participation in parent-teacher conferences, assistance in fundraising, input in program and curriculum decisions, attendance at PTO meetings, and participation in school volunteer opportunities. Open-enrollment charter parent participation levels at the schools their children previously attended are not particularly high. In every school activity category, about 10 to 25 percent more campus charter parents report participation in their childrens previous schools in comparison to open-enrollment charter parents. When open-enrollment charter parents reported their participation levels in their childrens current schools, participation levels increased only slightly (1 to 3 percentage points). Participation levels for campus charter parents remained high in their current schools. Campus charter parent participation levels exceeded those of open-enrollment charter school and traditional school parents across all participation categories. Open-enrollment charter school parents were more likely than traditional public school parents to volunteer at school, attend a board meeting, and help with curricular decisions. Table VII.9 Parent Participation at Previous and Current Schools (Percentages of Parents Saying Yes) Activity Open-Enr Charter Sample Campus Charter Sample Traditional School Sample*Participation in Previous SchoolAttend a parent-teacher conference77.893.9--Attend a PTO meeting65.786.0--Help with fund-raising51.071.3--Volunteer at school44.571.1--Attend a board meeting28.541.1--Help make program/curriculum decisions20.529.8--Participation in Current SchoolAttend a parent-teacher conference79.696.188.6Attend a PTO meeting70.489.778.1Help with fund-raising55.571.760.2Volunteer at school51.370.243.8Attend a board meeting30.940.424.9Help make program/curriculum decisions23.433.319.0* Only current ratings are provided for the traditional school because these parents have not removed their children from traditional public schools. Additional Information Provided by Survey Open-enrollment and campus charter parents were asked if they were required to volunteer at their childrens charter schools prior to student enrollment. A greater percentage of campus charter parents (26 percent) reported volunteer requirements in comparison to open-enrollment charter parents (19 percent). Open-enrollment and campus charter parents also were asked where their children would have attended school if they had not gone to a charter school. Table VII.10 shows that about two-thirds of open-enrollment charter parents report their children would attend traditional public schools if they did not attend open-enrollment charter schools. Fewer students would have attended a private religious school or a private non-religious school, be home schooled, or dropped out. In contrast, the vast majority of campus charter parents (83%) reported their children would have been in a neighborhood public school. These differences may be partially attributed to the fact that traditional public schools are one of the chief means of recruiting students into campus charter schools. Table VII.10 Where Students Would Have Attended School if not for the Charter School? (Percentages) Open-Enr Charter Sample N=1,139Campus Charter Sample N=322Neighborhood public school65.483.2Private religious school14.48.4Home school8.92.2Drop out6.50.0Magnet public school2.51.2Private non-religious school2.45.0 Summary Parents of students in Texas open-enrollment charter schools hear about the schools, for the most part, from friends and relatives. They are less likely to learn about charter schools from traditional public schools. This method of spreading information about the open-enrollment charter schools may affect the racial distinctiveness of charter schools. Open-enrollment charter school parents choose schools for different reasons than parents of students in traditional public schools or in campus charter schools. When open-enrollment charter parents identify the most important reason for choosing their charter schools, the most frequent response is the teaching of moral values. Parents of students in traditional public schools and campus charter schools cited high test scores most frequently, followed by safety. In rating the schools their children attended prior to open-enrollment charter schools, parents give previous schools much lower grades. Charter school parents were least satisfied with the amount of input parents had in school operations, teaching moral values, and discipline. On the other hand, when compared to parents of students in traditional public schools, open-enrollment charter parents do not give dramatically higher grades to their childrens current charter schools. Open-enrollment charter parents are somewhat more approving than traditional public school parents, but not by a large margin. Overall, the most approving parents were those whose children attended campus charter schools. Open-enrollment charter school parents participation rates increased only slightly from their previous school to their current charter school (about one to three percent), except for volunteering at school. Campus charter parent participation levels exceeded those of open-enrollment charter school and traditional school parents across all participation categories. Open-enrollment charter school parents were more likely than traditional public school parents to volunteer at school, attend a board meeting, and help with curricular decisions, but less likely to attend a parent-teacher conference, PTO meeting, or help with fund raising. Section VIII: Charter School Revenues and Expenditures During the 1999-00 school year, 142 charter schools served 25,687 students enrolled in 176 charter school campuses. Charter schools have no taxable property and are funded almost entirely by the state, although they also receive some federal funding. Like traditional public schools, charter schools are subject to state information reporting requirements of the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). In October of each year, charter schools and traditional public schools report revenue and expenditure estimates from their adopted budgets. At the end of the fiscal year, charter schools and traditional public school districts report actual revenue and expenditures. This section describes revenues and expenditures of Texas open-enrollment charter schools based on an analysis of data reported by the (). Data for traditional public schools and charter schools for 1999-00 were obtained from the Financial Data Mart Reports of PEIMS actual financial data. Charter school budgeted program expenditure data come from ڒs Snapshot 2000. Finance data for traditional public schools for 1999-00 also come from the Ad Hoc Reports web site and ڒs Snapshot 2000 data. This section includes the 1999-00 revenue and expenditures for 142 charter schools that were granted charters by the State Board of Education and were in operation by the fall of the 1999-00 school year. Differences between some computed totals and other published figures are due to calculations on amounts that have been rounded or averaged. Computations involving actual expenditures by function and object are computed totals and may differ from aggregated state totals due to rounding. In addition, in some instances, data reporting for charter schools presents anomalies and outliers that affect averages and percentages. As with other sections of the report, schools are grouped into one of three categories: 75 Percent Rule charter schools, open-enrollment charter schools that serve 75 percent or more at-risk students, and open-enrollment charter schools that serve less than 75 percent at-risk students. Appendix B presents charter schools by classification category. Of the 142 charter schools discussed in this section, 44 are classified as 75 Percent Rule charter schools, and 97 are classified as open-enrollment charter schools, 26 of which serve 75 percent or more at-risk student populations and 71 serving less than 75 percent at-risk students. Where practical, comparisons are made between the three classifications of charter schools, as well as between traditional public schools and charter schools. Revenue Sources Funding for public education in Texas comes from three primary sources: local, state, and federal. Table VIII.1 compares sources of revenue for traditional public schools with those of charter schools for 1999-00. Local funding is derived from taxes on district property value. State funding is based on a finance system defined in state statute. Charter schools receive foundation program tier one and tier two funding for each student in average daily attendance (ADA). Tier one funding is based on what the students foundation program allotments would have been in the traditional public school district where they live. For tier two, charter schools receive per-pupil funding based on the county average tier-two tax effort. This approach avoids the disparities that would occur because of different property tax rates in individual school districts. Foundation program allotments per pupil are higher if a student is eligible for career and technology education, bilingual education, compensatory education, gifted and talented education, or special education. If students are served by a compensatory education program, the charter school must offer free or reduced price lunches. Congress appropriates federal funds to schools and districts, usually for specific programs or populations of students (e.g., the Title I program for low-income students), and funds must be expended for designated purposes, the majority of which supplement existing programs. Table VIII.1 Comparison of Revenue Sources for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 Revenue SourceTraditional Public Schools PercentagesCharter Schools PercentagesLocal (property tax) and other51% 11%*State46%78%Federal3%11%Source: Snapshot 2000, pp. 38, 50, and 392. *Local funding for charter schools comes primarily from grants and donations. Charter schools do not have the authority to impose taxes; therefore, all of their funding at the local level is derived from sources other than local property taxes. The greater part of their total funding is derived from state revenue (78 percent). In 1999-00, the percentage of state funding that charter schools received exceeded that received by traditional public schools by more than two-thirds, and the percentage of federal funding they received was almost four times as much as that received by traditional public schools. However, charter schools received almost five times less local and other funds than traditional public schools because they do not receive local tax revenue. During the 1999-00 school year, the total revenue for individual charter schools ranged from no reported revenue to $4,673,307, with the average being $943,994. The total revenue for all charter schools was $134,827,252, with total revenue per pupil of $5,249. The comparison of the per-pupil dollar amounts received by charter and traditional public schools in Table VIII.2a shows the magnitude of state funding for charter schools. Table VIII.2a Comparison of Budgeted Per-Pupil Revenue for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 Revenue SourceTraditional Public Schools*Charter Schools*Local & other$3,179 $577State$2,868$4,094Federal $187 $577Total revenue$6,234$5,249Note: Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Source: Snapshot 2000, pp. 388, 392. * Traditional public school enrollment = 3,966,096; charter school enrollment = 25,687. Charter schools received significantly more state revenue per pupil than traditional public schools but significantly less per pupil in local and other funds. Both traditional public schools and charter schools received little revenue from federal sources, although charter schools received as much from federal sources as from local and other sources. Because reported amounts include anomalies such as schools failing to report revenue in some categories, reported averages are inexact. It is anticipated that, with experience, charter schools will improve the quality of their data reporting. Table VIII.2b shows a comparison of the budgeted per-pupil revenue of 75 Percent Rule charter schools with open-enrollment charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students and those serving less than 75 percent at-risk students. Table VIII.2b Comparison of Charter School Budgeted Per-Pupil Revenue by Classification for 1999-00 Revenue 75% RuleOpen-Enr e" 75%Open-Enr < 75%Total revenue$27,613,949$34,073,560$71,926,670Revenue per pupil $4,642 $6,105  $5,115Enrollment5,9495,58114,063Note: Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Source: Texas Education Agency Snapshot 2000, pp. 356-392. During the 1999-00 school year, open-enrollment charter schools that serve 75 percent or more at-risk students received more revenue per student than charter schools whose student populations comprise less than 75 percent at-risk students. Seventy-five Percent Rule charter schools received less revenue than did charter schools in the other two categories. Expenditures Texas schools report expenditures by function, object, and, in some cases, by program. Functions describe the broad purpose of expenditures, such as instruction or administration; objects describe the service or item purchased, such as salaries or supplies; and program classifications are used to identify instructional areas or arrangements, such as regular, special, and bilingual education programs. Expenditures by Function More than half of total charter school expenditures were budgeted for instruction and instruction-related functions (Table VIII.3). These expenditures include all activities that relate directly to the interaction between teachers and students, including computer-aided instruction. During the 1999-00 academic year, the greatest budgeted expenditures were instructional (51 percent) and central administration (18 percent). For traditional public schools (not shown), instruction comprised 52 percent, and central administration was 6 percent of budgeted expenditures. The per-pupil total operating expenditures for charter schools was $5,220 compared with $5,671 for traditional public schools. Table VIII.3 Charter School Budgeted Expenditures for 1999-00 Expenditure CategoryTotal Expenditures*Percent of Total ExpendituresInstructional$69,550,54851%Central administration $24,547,25218%School leadership  $8,182,417 6%Plant services $17,728,57113%Other operating $13,637,36210%Non-operating $2,727,472 2%Total $136,373,624100%* Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Source: Snapshot 2000, pp. 392-393. Table VIII.4 shows actual charter school expenditures by function for 1999-00. Instruction continues to account for the greatest expenditure per pupil for charter schools, although their average expenditure for this function was less than that of traditional public schools. During 1999-00, charter schools spent more per pupil than traditional public schools on curriculum and staff development, school leadership, food services, general administration, and plant maintenance and operation. Most charter schools are smaller than traditional public schools and school districts; therefore, their greater administrative and plant costs may be due to a lack of central infrastructure and an inability to take advantage of economies of scale. The lowest per-pupil expenditures were in the areas of social work services, community services, instructional resources, facilities acquisition, and co-curricular and extra-curricular. Table VIII.4 Charter School Actual Average Expenditures Per Pupil by Function for 1999-00 ExpenditurePer-Pupil ExpendituresCharter SchoolsState AverageInstruction (11)$2,657$3,316Instructional resources (12)$17$102Curriculum/staff development (13)$89$58Instructional leadership (21)$39$76School leadership (23)$522$348Guidance/counseling (31)$72$185Social work services (32)$6$12Health services (33)$18$54Student transportation (34)$43$159Food services* (35)$64$39Co-/extra-curricular (36)$14$142General administration (41)$693$228Plant maintenance & operation (51)$700$629Security/monitoring (52)$29$36Data processing (53)$55$60Community services (61)$10--Facilities acquisition (81)$13--Total average expenditures/pupil$4,997$5,472* Food services expenditures are comparable only when aggregated across all funds. Note: Expenditures for some charter schools were significantly greater than all other charter schools. To address data quality issues, evaluators removed obvious outliers before per-student calculations were completed. These omissions, coupled with rounding averages, result in some totals differing from those reported in Snapshot 2000. Source: , Data Central: Financial Data Mart Reports,  HYPERLINK "http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us" http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us. Table VIII.5 presents a comparison of expenditures per pupil for 1999-00 for 75 Percent Rule, open-enrollment charter schools serving populations comprising 75 percent or more at-risk students, and open-enrollment charter schools serving populations that include less than 75 percent at-risk students. Table VIII.5 Charter School Function Expenditures Per Pupil by Classification for 1999-00 Expenditure75% RuleOpen-Enr e" 75%Open-Enr < 75%Instruction (11)$2,377$3,678$2,448Instructional resources (12)$11$30$15Curriculum/staff development (13)$162$50$58Instructional leadership (21)$71$30$23School leadership (23)$636$640$404Guidance/counseling (31)$67$164$43Social work (32)$0$12$7Health services (33)$12$29$18Student transportation (34)$45$40$43Food services * (35)$55$102$57Co-/extra-curricular (36)$10$23$13General administration (41)$546$742$768Plant maintenance & operation (51)$773$680$662Security/monitoring (52)$36$37$22Data processing (53)$18$102$60Community services (61)$1$19$12Facilities acquisition (81)$7$35$9Total expenditures per pupil$4,811$6,124$4,672Note: Expenditures for some charter schools were significantly greater than all other charter schools. To address data quality issues, evaluators removed obvious outliers before per-student calculations were completed. Total charter school student enrollment=24,453; 75% Rule=5,551; open-enrollment e" 75%=5,581; open-enrollment <75%=13,321. * Food services expenditures are comparable only when aggregated across all funds. Source: Texas Education Agency, PAI Data Central: Financial Data Mart Reports,  HYPERLINK "http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us" http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us. Seventy-five Percent Rule charter schools spent more per pupil for curriculum and staff development, instructional leadership, and plant maintenance and operation than other charter schools. Charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students had higher expenditures per pupil for instruction, instructional resources, guidance and counseling, health services, food services, co-curricular and extra-curricular, data processing, and facilities acquisition than other charter schools. Charter schools that serve less than 75 percent at-risk students spent more for general administration. As a whole, open-enrollment charter schools serving primarily at-risk students had significantly higher total operating expenditures per pupil than other charter schools. Expenditures by Object Objects of expenditure include payroll, professional and contracted services, supplies and materials, other operating expenses, and debt services. Table VIII.6 displays charter school expenditures per pupil, by selected object categories for 1999-00. Table VIII.6 Comparison of Object Expenditures Per Pupil for Charter Schools by Category for 1999-00 Expenditure Object75% RuleOpen-Enr e" 75%Open-Enr < 75%Payroll (6100)$9,166$4,447$3,074Professional/contracted services (6200)$5,166$1,623$1,125Supplies/materials (6300)$1,031$507$283Other operating expenses (6400)$1,060$348$217Debt services (6600)$104$41$24Note: Total charter school student enrollment=24,453; 75% Rule=5,551; open-enrollment e" 75%=5,581; open-enrollment <75%=13,321. Source: Texas Education Agency, PAI Data Central: Financial DM Reports,  HYPERLINK "http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us" http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us. Payroll expenditures were the largest object expenditure category for charter schools across classifications. However, in payroll as well as the other four object areas, 75 Percent Rule charter schools had average per-pupil expenditures exceeding those of other charter schools. For example, 75 Percent Rule charter schools had more than double the amount of per-pupil expenditures for payroll, supplies and materials, and debt services than charter schools in the other two categories. In addition, 75 Percent Rule charter schools had more than three times the expenditures per pupil for professional and contracted services (for services rendered to school districts by firms, individuals, and other organizational entities) and other operating expenditures (which include student support services, student transportation, food service, co- and extra-curricular activities, and curriculum and staff development) than open-enrollment schools regardless of at-risk student enrollment. Expenditures by Program Instructional expenditures are a sub-set of operating expenditures and are categorized by program. Table VIII.7 shows a comparison of program expenditures for traditional public schools with those for charter schools for the 1999-00 school year. Table VIII.7 Percentage Comparison of Budgeted Program Expenditures for Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for 1999-00 ProgramPercent of Expenditures*Traditional Public SchoolsCharter Schools Regular education7186Special education126Compensatory education74Bilingual education41Career and technology42Gifted and talented20Source: Snapshot 2000, page 393. * Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Charter schools budgeted a greater percentage for regular education than did traditional public schools; however, traditional public schools spent a greater percentage in all other areas listed. Summary Texas open-enrollment charter schools derive the majority of their funding from state revenue and receive very little revenue from federal and other resources. There are some exceptions to this generalization. For example, some schools have aggressive fund-raising programs. Since charter schools are not authorized to impose local taxes, they receive no local tax funding. Instruction continues to account for the greatest per-pupil expenditure for charter schools. They spent more than traditional public schools for functions such as plant maintenance and operation, general administration, and school leadership. This may be attributed to their smaller size, lack of central infrastructure, and diminished ability to take advantage of economies of scale. Seventy-five Percent Rule charter schools spent a greater percentage of their budget for staff development, and charter schools comprising 75 percent or more at-risk students spent more for instruction, guidance and counseling, data processing, and facilities acquisition than the other charter schools. Charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students had higher per-pupil expenditures for general administration. Among object expenditures, all charter schools expended a greater amount of their budgets per pupil for payroll, followed by professional and contracted services. Seventy-five Percent Rule charter schools spent a significantly greater amount per pupil in all object areas than other open-enrollment charter schools. As with traditional public schools, the majority of budgeted program expenditures continue to be for regular education, with charter schools spending a greater percentage of their budgets in this area than traditional public schools. Section IX: Commentary and Policy Implications The Texas charter schools movement has developed within the context of the growth of charter schools throughout the United States. The 1999-00 school year marked Texas fourth year of experience with open-enrollment charter schools, and the current evaluation explores the experiences and opinions of charter school students and their families, traditional public school administrators perceptions of charter schools, the operations of charter schools, and the performance of charter schools and their students. In Texas, charter schools serve a relatively small proportion of public school students, but the number of charter schools and students has climbed steadily since the first charter school opened. In 1999-00, 146 charter schools operated for the entire school year and served about 25,600 students. Of those charter schools, 46 were required to serve primarily at-risk students (75 Percent Rule charters). Charter schools vary widely in terms of enrollment, ethnicity, grade span, and educational mission. In order to capture the differences among charter schools, evaluators examined schools serving primarily traditional students and those serving a preponderance of students who are at-risk of leaving the public school system. Additional analyses explored change over time through longitudinal investigations related to generations of charter schools. Despite attempts to ensure accuracy and fairness, several factors complicate the study of charter schools. First, the increasing number of schools and students each year complicates the assessment of change over time. In addition, much of the evaluation data is self-reported or charter-collected, and thus, evaluators rely upon charter school administrators compliance with data requests. Full cooperation is needed in future evaluations to ensure that reported information represents the entire population of charter schools. To further synthesize findings, evaluation team members offer the following conclusions and policy implications. Racial and Ethnic Distinctiveness of Charter School Students Compared to the student population of traditional public schools, charter school students are racially and ethnically distinctive. Charter schools have a much higher proportion of African American students, a lower proportion of White students, and a similar percentage of Hispanic students. Moreover, about a third of charter school campuses enroll predominantly one racial/ethnic group, with these campuses predominantly serving African American and Hispanic students. Results suggest that racial and ethnic distinctiveness stems in part from the individual decisions made by charter householdsthat is, decisions to leave a particular traditional public school and enroll at a particular charter school. Analysis of decision-making tendencies shows that parents and students typically choose charter schools that have higher concentrations of their particular ethnic groups. African Americans pick schools with higher percentages of African American students than the schools they leave. Likewise, Hispanics select schools with higher percentages of Hispanics, and Whites pick schools with higher percentages of White students (Open-enrollment Charter Schools Third Year Evaluation, 2000). An additional factor related to charter schools racial distinctiveness is the way in which students are drawn to charter schools. Texas parents are generally unaware of the existence of charter schools. Most parents learn about open-enrollment charter schools by talking to friends and relatives. Attracting students to charter schools through such informal networks tends to replicate the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic stratification that characterizes these networks. In general, policymakers might consider whether charter schools propensity toward racial and ethnic distinctiveness warrants action. It seems likely that the racial characteristics of schools may cause criticism at some point in time, and such controversy may undermine the educational opportunities offered by charter schools. One policy mechanism would be to disseminate information to the public about the existence and characteristics of charter schools. Currently, individual charter schools are required to notify the public, but there is no systematic statewide process for informing the public about charter schools. Research indicates that when vigorous attempts are made to provide information about alternative schools, impacts of race and class are greatly reduced. Teacher Characteristics in Charter Schools Compared to traditional public schools, charter schools have less experienced teachers, lower teacher salaries, and higher teacher turnover. Charter school teachers, on average, have only 5.3 years experience, with 41 percent having one to five years experience. Furthermore, teachers in charter schools are paid considerably less than those in traditional public schools, although part of the salary differences may be accounted for by the relative inexperience of charter school teachers. In addition to inexperienced teachers, the teacher turnover rate in charter schools is a major concern. Turnover rates derived from the directors survey (30 percent) and AEIS reports (49 percent) are two to three times the state average (15 percent). Given that teachers are the heart of any educational system, teacher inexperience and high teacher turnover must adversely affect student performance. From a policy perspective, it is important to understand why charter school teachers are less experienced and why the turnover rate is so high. One reason, of course, could be the lower salaries and benefitshowever, lower benefits might be offset by greater educational flexibility in charter schools. A second reason could be commitment. Teacher certification is not a requirement for charter schools, and only 40 percent of charter school teachers are certified compared with the vast majority of traditional public school teachers. Regardless of the benefits of teacher certification, obtaining certification indicates a degree of commitment, and it may be that this commitment results in higher teacher retention in traditional public schools. In light of research showing that student performance depends substantially on effective teaching by qualified, committed teachers who possess content knowledge and pedagogical skills, charter school policies should support the development of high quality charter school faculties. Therefore, evaluators recommend a more in-depth study of teacher quality issues, particularly teacher retention and qualifications, in future evaluations of Texas charter schools. Parental Involvement in Charter Schools Parental involvement has long been recognized as a major factor in improving childrens academic performance, and, indeed, parental involvement was considered one of the responding directors most important reasons for starting a charter school (ranked third in a list of 12 reasons). Yet, directors from schools in operation for more than one year indicated that the primary challenge they faced was parental involvement, even more so than funding or the realization of their vision for the school. Considering the family choice offered by charter schools, why would parental involvement be such a problem? When asked to identify support activities in which parents were most involved, fund-raising was at the top charter school directors lists. For most parents, however, fund-raising does not directly involve them in their childrens education, and at worst, it might be seen as a significant burden. Thus, one might conclude that directors who find it difficult to get parents involved may benefit from seeking more positive and direct parental involvement to meet this challenge, such as parent volunteering at schools or parent support for at-home academic activities. Charter School Governance In previous reports, evaluators frequently noted concerns with the governance of charter schools, primarily the recruitment and selection of board members. Surveys have indicated that the recruitment and selection process is both informal and exclusive. Accountability and representative democracy are hallmarks of public institutions, and so, one would think, they should also be for charter schools. Yet, questions remain unansweredWhom do charter school boards represent, and to whom are they accountable? The State Board of Education authorizes charter schools, and thus it can be argued that the State Board represents the public. Yet, the public at large usually has no direct voice on charter school boards. One could argue that charter school boards should represent parents, but only 17 percent of all board members are parents, and almost half of the charter school boards have no parental representation. Some might argue that teachers should be represented. Yet, teachers, with only 6.2 percent membership on all boards, have even less representation than parents. In fact, more than three-fourths of the charter school boards have no teacher representation. Furthermore, many of the boards are extremely small, with 20 percent having three or fewer members, and many are racially distinctive40 percent of charter school boards have membership composed of only one ethnic or racial group. Evaluation results suggest that charter school boards should strive to be more inclusive with respect to race and ethnicity. Furthermore, as public institutions, charter schools should advertise board vacancies and solicit nominations from a broad spectrum of the community. Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Although charter schools in general receive strong support from their students, the level of satisfaction varies by school type. From students point of view, 75 Percent Rule charter schools have much room for improvement. In the eyes of many students, principals in 75 Percent Rule charter schools are less likely to care about their students than principals in other schools, the schools do not feel safer, they fail to offer both interesting classes and a broad choice in classes, and there is little order in the classrooms. Open-enrollment charter schools serving primarily at-risk students provide some insights into what students want in their schools. Although these schools serve the same at-risk population as 75 Percent Rule charter schools, the open-enrollment charter schools serving primarily at-risk students receive high ratings from their students relative to caring teachers, better teachers, smaller classes, and more personalized attention. Only 30 percent of students attending open-enrollment charter schools with less at-risk students find the school conveniently located to their homes. Given that the majority travel to attend the school, it is important to note that a number (albeit not the majority) are dissatisfied with several aspects of the schools. Most significantly, while charter schools are intended as a positive alternative to traditional public schools, nearly a fifth of the students are disappointed in the choice of classes offered, and some are also dissatisfied with the scarcity of interesting classes. Furthermore, a sizeable minority is displeased with the lack of order in the classroom. While there is not a majority dissatisfied with any one characteristic of open-enrollment charter schools with less at-risk students, the fact that a significant minority expresses reservations is cause for concern about school effectiveness. Effects on Public School Districts Overall, the effects of charter schools on traditional public schools are largely unknown due to the absence of a system for monitoring student movement. However, based on available evidence, approximately 75 percent of district administrators report no effects. Moreover, districts reporting effects characterize these as mild, with large districts reporting effects more frequently than mid-size or small districts. Superintendents near operating charter schools report students leaving district schools to attend charter schools; however, they are uncertain about exact numbers. Likewise, financial effects are generally unknown for the same reason. Very few districts reported changes in policies, programs, or services in response to the presence of charter schools. Similarly, very few reported any effects on district educators, students, or parents. A few administrators mentioned problems with students transferring back to the traditional public schools without mastering course content for which they received credit. Considering the limited findings relative to the effects on traditional public schools, future evaluations might focus on issues such as communication between traditional and charter schools, attitudes toward charter schools, collaborative arrangements between traditional and charter schools, and issues related to student performance and course credits. Academic Performance of Charter Schools Traditional public schools outperform charter schools on student academic performance indicators, even when adjustments are made to create analogous comparison groups. Based on AEIS annual accountability ratings, traditional public schools are rated higher than charter schools in both primary and alternative education rating systems. Accountability trends show that the percentage of Low-Performing charter schools has increased from 20 percent (1998) to 30 percent (2000), while traditional public schools percentages have remained consistently low (1 to 2 percent). In addition, traditional schools are more likely to be rated as Recognized or Exemplary. Charter school students TAAS performance is lower than state averages in all areas, with lower performance rates consistent across all student comparison groups. Furthermore, comparable -created peer groups outperform charter schools on TAAS. Although charter schools have greater advanced course completions compared to analogous state comparison group averages, charter students have lower performance on end-of-course exams. Some positive student performance trends, however, were identified for particular types of charter schools. First, when examining progress over time, Generation1 schools serving primarily at-risk students made significant progress. Five schools doubled their students TAAS performance levels for all tests taken and made notable gains across all subject areas. Even so, student performance fell short of the average statewide performance levels. Additional student-level analyses for charter school students who stayed in charter schools serving at-risk students showed high academic performance. Students who remained in charter schools serving at-risk students for two years had high passing rates (71 to 89 percent) and strong academic gains in TAAS reading and mathematics (11 to 12 percentage points). Second, the performance of charter schools serving less than 75 percent at-risk students lagged behind statewide passing rates, even though these schools serve less economically disadvantaged students than the state average. However, a small sample of students enrolled in charter schools serving less at-risk students for three years showed increasing TAAS passing percentages for reading and mathematics. Overall, student performance results for charter schools raise questions about the academic effectiveness of many schools. Although findings for particular types of schools are encouraging, accountability ratings show there is wide variance among charter schools in terms of student learning. Charter schools, particularly those serving at-risk students, appear to improve over time, and continuous student enrollment in charter schools seems to make a difference in student success. Clearly, accountability for student performance should be a major consideration when renewing charter schools. The Commissioner and must ensure that adequate data are available to support sound decision making about school effectiveness. In addition, future evaluations of charter schools should attempt to identify the characteristics of charter schools that have a positive impact on student achievement. Appendix A Statutory Provisions Governing Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 12.063 12.063. Basis for Placement on Probation or Revocation EDUCATION CODE (a) A board of trustees may place on probation or revoke a charter it grants if the board determines that the campus or program: (1) committed a material violation of the charter; (2) failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management; or (3) failed to comply with this subchapter, another law, or a state agency rule. (b) The action the board takes under Subsection (a) shall be based on the best interest of campus or program students, the severity of the violation, and any previous violation the campus or program has committed. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Renumbered from V.T.C.A. Education Code .12.062 by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1335, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 12.064. Procedure for Placement on Probation or Revocation (a) Each board of trustees that grants a charter under this subchapter shall adopt a procedure to be used for placing on probation or revoking a charter it grants. (b) The procedure adopted under Subsection (a) must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the campus or program for which a charter is granted under this subchapter and to parents and guardians of students at the campus or in the program. A hearing under this subsection must be held on the campus or on one of the campuses in the case of a cooperative charter program. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Renumbered from V.T.C.A. Education Code 12.063 by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1335, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. 12.065. Admission (a) Eligibility criteria for admission of students to the campus or program for which a charter is granted under this subchapter must give priority on the basis of geographic and residency considerations. After priority is given on those bases, secondary consideration may be given to a student's age, grade level, or academic credentials in general or in a specific area, as necessary for the type of program offered. (b) The campus or program may require an applicant to submit an application not later than a reasonable deadline the campus or program establishes. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Renumbered from V.T.C.A. Education Code 12.064 by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1335, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. [Sections 12.066 to 12.100 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER D. OPENENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL 12.101. Authorization (a) In accordance with this subchapter, the State Board of Education may grant a charter on the application of an eligible entity for an openenrollment charter school to operate in a facility of a commercial or nonprofit entity or 'a school district, including a homerule school district. In this subsection, "eligible entity" means: (1) an institution of higher education as defined under Section 61.003; (2) a private or independent institution of higher education as defined under Section 61.003; (3) an organization that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3)); or (4) a governmental entity. (b) The State Board of Education may not grant a total of more than 20 charters for an openenrollment charter school. (c) If the facility to be used for an openenrollment charter school is a school district facility, the school must be operated in the facility in accordance with the terms established by the board of trustees or other governing body of the district in an agreement governing the relationship between the school and the district. (d) An educator employed by a school district before the effective date of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school operated at a school district facility may not be transferred to or employed by the openenrollment charter school over the educator's objection. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.105 PUBLIC EDUCATION 12.1011. Public Education Grant Charters (a) In addition to the other charters authorized under this subchapter, in accordance with this subchapter the State Board of Education may grant: (1) not more than 100 charters for openenrollment charter schools that adopt an express policy providing for the admission of students eligible for a public education grant under Subchapter G, Chapter 29; and (2) additional charters for openenrollment charter schools for which at least 75 percent of the prospective student population, as specified in the proposed charter, will be students who have dropped out of school or are at risk of dropping out of school as defined by Section 29.081. (b) An openenrollment charter school granted a charter under this section may serve students who are not eligible for a public education grant under Subchapter G, Chapter 29, but a school granted a charter under Subsection (a)(2) must maintain, as a condition of its charter, the required percentage of students. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 722, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Section 7 of Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 722 provides: "This Act applies beginning with the 19971998 school year." 12.102. Authority Under Charter An openenrollment charter school: (1) shall provide instruction to students at one or more elementary or secondary grade levels as provided by the charter; (2) is governed under the governing structure described by the charter; (3) retains authority to operate under the charter contingent on satisfactory student performance as provided by the charter in accordance with Section 12.111; and (4) does not have authority to impose taxes. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.103. Applicability of Laws and Rules to OpenEnrollment Charter School An openenrollment charter school is subject to federal and state laws and rules governing public schools, except that an openenrollment charter school is subject to this code and rules adopted under this code only to the extent the applicability to an open-enrollment charter school of a provision of this code or a rule adopted under this code is specifically provided. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, ef May 30, 1995. 12.104. Applicability of Title (a) An openenrollment charter school has the powers granted to schools under this title. (b) An openenrollment charter school is subject to: (1) a provision of this title establishing a criminal offense; and (2) a prohibition, restriction, or requirement, as applicable, imposed by this title or a rule adopted under this title, relating to: (A) the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) to the extent necessary to monitor compliance with this subchapter as determined by the commissioner; (B) criminal history records under Subchapter C, Chapter 22;1 (C) reading instruments and accelerated reading instruction programs under Section 28.006; (D) satisfactory performance on assessment instruments and to accelerated instruction under Section 28.0211; (E) high school graduation under Section 28.025; (F) special education programs under Subchapter A, Chapter 29; (G) bilingual education under Subchapter B, Chapter 29; 2 (H) prekindergarten programs under Subchapter E, Chapter 29; 3 (I) extracurricular activities under Section 33.081; (J) health and safety under Chapter 38; and (K) public school accountability under Subchapters B, C, D, and G, Chapter 39. 4 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, ?6th Leg., ch. 396, 2.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. 1 V.T.C.A., Education Code 22.081 et seq. 2 V.T.C.A., Education Code 29.051 et seq. 3 V.T.C.A., Education Code 29.151 et seq. 4 V.T.C.A., Education Code 39.021 et seq., 39.051 et seq., 39.071 et seq., and 39.131 et seq. 12.105. Status (a) An openenrollment charter school is part of the public school system of this state. 12.105 EDUCATION CODE (b) The governing body of the school is considered a governmental body for purposes of Chapters 551 and 552, Government Code. Any requirement in those chapters relating to a school district, school board, or school children applies to an openenrollment charter school and to children attending an openenrollment school. (c) The school is immune from liability to the same extent as a school district, and its employees and volunteers are immune from liability to the same extent as school district employees and volunteers. (d) An employee of an openenrollment charter school who qualifies for membership in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas shall be covered under the system to the same extent a qualified employee of a school district is covered. For each employee of the school covered under the system, the school is responsible for making any contribution that otherwise would be the legal responsibility of the school district, and the state is responsible for making contributions to the same extent it would be legally responsible if the employee were a school district employee. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, 1, eff. June 19, 1999. 12.106. State Funding (a) An openenrollment charter school is entitled to the distribution from the available school fund for a student attending the openenrollment charter school to which the district in which the student resides would be entitled. (b) A student attending an openenrollment charter school who is eligible under Section 42.003 is entitled to the benefits of the Foundation School Program under Chapter 42. The commissioner shall distribute from the foundation school fund to each school an amount equal to the cost of a Foundation School Program provided by the program for which the charter is granted as determined under Section 42.251, including the transportation allotment under Section 42.155, for the student that the district in which the student resides would be entitled to, less an amount equal to the sum of the school's tuition receipts under Section 12.107 plus the school's distribution from the available school fund. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.107. Local Funding (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an open-enrollment charter school is entitled to receive tuition from the school district in which a student attending the school resides in an amount equal to the quotient of the tax revenue collected by the school district for maintenance and operations for the school year for which tuition is being paid divided by the sum of the number of students enrolled in the district as reported in the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), including the number of students for whom the district is required to pay tuition. (b) The tuition to be paid under Subsection (a) by a school district with a wealth per student that exceeds the equalized wealth level under Chapter 41 shall be based on the district's tax revenue after the district has acted to achieve the equalized wealth level under Chapter 41. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.108. Tuition Restricted Except as provided by Section 12.106, an open-enrollment charter school may not charge tuition to an eligible student who applies under Section 12.117. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.109. Transportation An openenrollment charter school shall provide transportation to each student attending the school to the same extent a school district is required by law to provide transportation to district students. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.110. Application (a) The State Board of Education shall adopt: (1) an application form and a procedure that must be used to apply for a charter for an openenrollment charter school; and (2) criteria to use in selecting a program for which to grant a charter. (b) The application form must provide for including the information required under Section 12.111 to be contained in a charter. (c) As part of the application procedure, the board may require a petition supporting a charter for a school signed by a specified number of parents or PUBLIC EDUCATION 12.113. guardians of schoolage children residing in the area in which a school is proposed or may hold a public hearing to determine parental support for the school. (d) The board may approve or deny an application based on criteria it adopts. The criteria the board adopts must include: (1) criteria relating to improving student performance and encouraging innovative programs; and (2) a statement from any school district whose enrollment is likely to be affected by the open-enrollment charter school, including information relating to any financial difficulty that a loss in enrollment may have on the district. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.111. Content Each charter granted under this subchapter must: (1) describe the educational program to be offered, which must include the required curriculum as provided by Section 28.002; (2) specify the period for which the charter or any charter renewal is valid; (3) provide that continuation or renewal of the charter is contingent on acceptable student performance on assessment instruments adopted under Subchapter B, Chapter 39,1 and on compliance with any accountability provision specified by the charter, by a deadline or at intervals specified by the charter; (4) establish the level of student performance that is considered acceptable for purposes of Subdivision (3); (5) specify any basis, in addition to a basis specified by this subchapter, on which the charter may be placed on probation or revoked or on which renewal of the charter may be denied; (6) prohibit discrimination in admission policy on the basis of sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, academic or athletic ability, or the district the child would otherwise attend in accordance with this code, although the charter may provide for the exclusion of a student who has a documented history of a criminal offense, a juvenile court adjudication, or discipline problems under Subchapter A, Chapter 37; (7) specify the grade levels to be offered; (8) describe the governing structure of the program, including: (A) the officer positions designated; (B) the manner in which officers are selected and removed from office; (C) the manner in which members of the governing body are selected and removed from office; (D) the manner in which vacancies on the governing board are filled; (E) the term for which members of the governing body serve; and (F) whether the terms are to be staggered; (9) specify the qualifications to be met by professional employees of the program; (10) describe the process by which the person providing the program will adopt an annual budget; (11) describe the manner in which an annual audit of the financial and programmatic operations of the program is to be conducted, including the manner in which the person providing the program will provide information necessary for the school district in which the program is located to participate, as required by this code or by State Board of Education rule, in the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS); (12) describe the facilities to be used; (13) describe the geographical area served by the program; and (14) specify any type of enrollment criteria to be used. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, 2, eff. June 19, 1999. 1 V.T.C.A., Education Code 39.021. Section 10(a) of Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335 provides: "Each openenrollment charter school for which a charter is granted before September 1, 1999 shall revise its charter as necessary to comply with Section 12.111, Education Code, as amended by this Act, not later than January 1, 2000:" 12.112. Form A charter for an openenrollment charter school shall be in the form of a written contract signed by the chair of the State Board of Education and the chief operating officer of the school. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.113. Charter Granted Each charter the State Board of Education grants for an openenrollment charter school must: 12.113. EDUCATION CODE (1) satisfy this subchapter; and (2) include the information that is required under Section 12.111 consistent with the information provided in the application and any modification the board requires. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.114. Revision A revision of a charter of an openenrollment charter school may be made only with the approval of the State Board of Education. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.115. Basis for Modification, Placement on Probation, Revocation, or Denial of Renewal (a) The State Board of Education may modify, place on probation, revoke, or deny renewal of the charter of an openenrollment charter school if the board determines that the person operating the school: (1) committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter; (2) failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management; or (3) failed to comply with this subchapter or another applicable law or rule. (b) The action the board takes under Subsection (a) shall be based on the best interest of the school's students, the severity of the violation, and any previous violation the school has committed. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.116. Procedure for Modification, Placement on Probation, Revocation, or Denial of Renewal (a) The State Board of Education shall adopt a procedure to be used for modifying, placing on probation, revoking, or denying renewal of the charter of an openenrollment charter school. (b) The procedure adopted under Subsection (a) must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the person operating the openenrollment charter school and to parents and guardians of students in the school. A hearing under this subsection must be held at the facility at which the program is operated. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.117. Application for Admission For admission to an openenrollment charter school, the person operating the school may require the applicant to complete and submit an application not later than a reasonable deadline the school establishes. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 12.118. Evaluation of OpenEnrollment Charter Schools (a) The board shall designate an impartial organization with experience in evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of openenrollment charter schools. (b) An evaluation under this section must include consideration of the following items before implementing the charter and after implementing the charter: (1) students' scores on assessment instruments administered under Subchapter B, Chapter 39;1 (2) student attendance; (3) students' grades; (4) incidents involving student discipline; (5) socioeconomic data on students' families; (6) parents' satisfaction with their children's schools; and (7) students' satisfaction with their schools. (c) The evaluation of openenrollment charter schools must also include an evaluation of: (1) the costs of instruction, administration, and transportation incurred by openenrollment charter schools; and (2) the effect of openenrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. 1 V.T.C.A., Education Code 39.021 et seq. 12.119. Bylaws; Annual Report (a) The entity to which a charter is granted for an openenrollment charter school shall file with the State Board of Education a copy of its bylaws, or a comparable document if the entity does not have 13.001 PUBLIC EDUCATION 13.001. bylaws, within the period and in the manner prescribed by the board. (b) Each year within the period and in a form prescribed by the State Board of Education, each openenrollment charter school shall file with the board the following information: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of each officer and member of the governing body of the openenrollment charter school; and (2) the amount of annual compensation the open-enrollment charter school pays to each officer and member of the governing body. (c) On request, the State Board of Education shall provide the information required by this section and Section 12.111(8) to a member of the public. The board may charge a reasonable fee to cover the board's cost in providing the information. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, 3, eff. June 19, 1999. Section 10(b) of Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335 provides: "The entity to which a charter for an openenrollment charter school is granted before September 1, 1999, shall file a copy of its bylaws or other document as required by Section 12.119(a), Education Code, as added by this Act, not later than January 1, 2000." 12.120. Limitation on Serving as Officer or Employee A person who has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude may not serve as an officer or member of the governing body of an openenrollment charter school. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, 3, eff. June 19, 1999. CHAPTER 13. CREATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ABOLITION OF A DISTRICT SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 13.001. Definition. 13.002. Permitted Frequency of Proposed Actions. 13.003. Petition and Election. 13.004. Allocation of Indebtedness and Personal Property. 13.005. Effective Date of Transfer. 13.006. Taxing Authority Transfer. 13.007. Boundary Changes Resulting in Appraisal District Changes. 13.008. District Trustee Approval of Boundary Changes Required. 13.009. Appeals. 13.010. Boundary Descriptions and Maps to be Filed with Agency. [Sections 13.011 to 13.050reserved for expansion] Section SUBCHAPTER B. DETACHMENT; ANNEXATION 13.051. Detachment and Annexation of Territory. 13.052. Dormant School Districts. 13.053. Territory Not in School District. 13.054. Academically Unacceptable School Districts. [Sections 13.055 to 13.100 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER C. CREATION OF DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT 13.101. Creation of District by Detaching Territory From Existing District. 13.102. Minimum Area and Attendance Requirements. 13.103. Initiation of Detachment. 13.104. Election. 13.105. Creation of District. [Sections 13.106 to 13.150 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER D. CONSOLIDATION 13.151. Districts That May Consolidate. 13.152. Resolution or Petition. 13.153. Election Order; Notice. 13.154. Canvass; Result. 13.155. Status; Governance. 13.156. Title to Property; Assumption of Debt. 13:157. Dissolution of Consolidated School District. [Sections 13.158 to 13.200 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER E. ABOLITION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.201. Eligibility. 13.202. Petition. 13.203. Election. 13.204. Order Abolishing, District. 13.205. Disposition of Territory; Affairs of Abolished District. [Sections 13.206 to 13.230 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER F. OTHER BOUNDARY CHANGES 13.231. Minor Boundary Adjustments by Agreement. [Sections 13.232 to 13.280 reserved for expansion] SUBCHAPTER G. INCENTIVE AID PAYMENTS 13.281. Incentive Aid. 13 .282. Amount; Computation. 13.283. Payments Reduced. 13.284. Conditions for Payment. 13.285. Cost. SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 13.001. Definition In this chapter, "membership" means the number of students enrolled in a school district as of a given date. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Appendix B Charter Schools Operating in 1999-00 School NameLocationGrade LevelsGenerationStart DateEnrollmentPercent Eco DisPercent At-RiskReport Classification21st Century AcademyCorpus Christi9-1239/98--------A.W. Brown FellowshipDallasPK-338/9917181.9%67.8%OE <75%Academy of Skills and KnowledgeTyler3-928/988414.3%50%OE <75%Academy of Accelerated LearningHoustonK-5 9-1229/991491.3%93.3%OE e" 75%Academy of BeaumontBeaumontK-639/9913860.1%24.8%OE <75%Academy of DallasDallasK-639/9917843.8%1.1%OE <75%Academy of HoustonHoustonK-629/9844137.0%0%OE <75%Academy of Bexar CountySan AntonioK-639/99829.8%0%OE <75%Academy of Transitional StudiesCorpus Christi6-1219/9621276.9%100%OE e" 75%Alief MontessoriHoustonK-629/989341.9%0%OE <75%All Saint s AcademyHouston7-1138/99------75% RuleAlphonso Crutch sHouston6-1239/9927540.4%100%75% RuleAmerican Academy of ExcellenceHouston6-1239/994987.8%100%75% RuleAmerican Youth WorksAustin9-1218/9623364.4%65.2%OE <75%Amigos Por VidaHoustonPK-1238/9924491.8%92.6%75% RuleArlington Classics AcademyArlingtonK-838/993110.0%0%OE <75%Benjis Special Education AcademyHoustonPK-12311/9813699.3%32.4%OE <75%Blessed Sacrament AcademySan Antonio9-1218/9618476.1%8.7%OE <75%Bolding AcademyMarshallPK-638/992352.2%47.8%*75% RuleBrazos School for InquiryBryanK-1238/99700%0%*75% RuleBright IdeasWichita FallsK-1239/98670%1.5%OE <75%Building AlternativeSan Antonio9-1219/9612471.8%83.9%OE e" 75%Burnham WoodEl PasoK-1228/9811533.9%0%OE <75%Calvin NelmsHouston9-1238/99530%94.3%75% RuleCareer Plus Learning AcademySan Antonio6-1239/992387%34.8%OE <75%Cedar RidgeLometa7-1229/982892.9%92.9%OE e" 75%Children First Academy DallasDallasK-5312/981230%0%OE <75%Children First Academy HoustonHoustonK-531/992300%0%OE <75%Coastal Bend Youth CityDriscollAges 10-1729/984697.8%95.7%OE e" 75%Comquest AcademyTomball9-1238/997152.1%0%*75% RuleCrossroads Community Educational CenterHouston9-1238/99--------Dallas AdvantageDallasK-539/9925375.1%75.3%OE e" 75%Dallas Can! AcademyDallasPK, 9-1219/9674768.3%100%OE e" 75%Dallas CommunityDallasPK-329/995974.6%27.1%OE <75%Dallas County Juvenile JusticeDallas5-1239/99539100%100%75% RuleEagle AdvantageDallasUG29/9810429.8%41.3%OE <75%Eagle Project AbileneAbilene7-1238/99490%83.7%75% RuleEagle Project BeaumontBeaumont7-1238/99510%100%75% RuleEagle Project BrownsvilleBrownsville7-1238/99510%84.3%75% RuleEagle Project BryanBryan7-1238/99440%100%75% RuleEagle Project DallasDallas7-1238/98530%75.5%75% RuleEagle Project Del RioDel Rio7-1238/99500%100%75% RuleEagle Project Ft. WorthFt. Worth7-1238/99470%52.2%*75% RuleEagle Project LaredoLaredo7-1238/99560%98.2%75% RuleEagle Project LubbockLubbock7-1238/99440%100%75% RuleEagle Project MidlandMidland7-1238/99510%78.4%*75% RuleEagle Project PharrPharr7-1238/99530%0%*75% RuleEagle Project San AntonioSan Antonio7-1238/99540%64.8%*75% RuleEagle Project TexarkanaTexarkana7-1238/99561.8%100%75% RuleEagle Project TylerTyler7-1238/99440%50%*75% RuleEagle Project WacoWaco7-1238/99390%97.4%75% RuleEast Texas Charter HSLongview9-1238/995251.9%100%OE e" 75%Eastpark PrepMissouri City6-839/99--------Ed White School of Educational EnhancementSeabrookPK-1229/9815720.4%35.9%OE <75%Eden Park AcademyAustinK-528/9827012.2%26.8%OE <75%Encino SchoolEncinoPK-828/987091.4%47.1%OE <75%Erath Excels! AcademyStephenville9-1238/998367.5%53.7%OE <75%Faith Family Academy DallasPK-12311/9839867.3%67.8%*75% RuleFocus Learning AcademyDallasK-638/991170.9%0%*75% RuleFruit of Excellence SchoolAustin1-1239/994285.7%61.4%*75% RuleGabriel TafollaUvalde5-1228/989183.5%5.5%OE <75%GatewayLaredo9-1238/9911747.9%27.1%OE <75%George I. SanchezHouston9-1218/9636867.1%37.8%OE <75%Girls & Boys Prep AcademyHouston6-1218/9639438.3%13.1%OE <75%Guardian Angel Performance AcademySan Antonio6-838/995474.1%0%*75% RuleGulf Shores AcademyHouston7-1239/9924899.6%98.3%75% RuleHarris County Juvenile JusticeHouston5-1228/98613100%100%OE e" 75%Heights Academy Houston7-1231/9911278.6%75%OE e" 75%Heritage AcademyDallas9-1231/9937548%100%75% RuleHiggs, Carter, King Gifted and TalentedSan AntonioPK-629/9817585.7%79.4%OE e" 75%Honors AcademyDallasPK-1231/9962526.2%86.9%OE e" 75%Houston AdvantageHoustonK-538/9922955.9%0%OE <75%Houston Can! AcademyHouston9-1229/9832027.5%100%OE e" 75%Houston Heights Learning AcadHoustonPK-538/99730%0%OE <75%I Am That I Am AcademyDallas4-1038/996387.3%0%*75% RuleImpact CharterHoustonPK-4310/989882.7%20.4%*75% RuleJamies HouseHouston6-1238/9945100%100%75% RuleJean Massieu AcademyIrvingK-1238/993928.2%2.6%OE <75%Jesse Jackson AcademyHouston9-12310/9810348.5%100%75% RuleJohn H. WoodSan AntonioK-1229/9810291.2%100%OE e" 75%Katherine Anne Porter SchoolWimberley9-1238/996126.2%29.5%OE <75%Kenny Dorham SchoolAustin6,831/99--------Kipp, Inc.HoustonK, 5-1029/9868390.5%86.8%OE e" 75%La Amistad Love & Learning AcademyHoustonPK-K31/995298.1%0%*75% RuleLa Escuela de Las AmericasSan AntonioPK-12310/989983.8%1%OE <75%Life of Oak CliffDallasK-1228/9856940.6%30.6%OE <75%Mainland Preparatory AcademyTexas CityPK-628/9821553%40.9%OE <75%Medical CenterHoustonK-519/9618650%34.9%OE <75%Mid-ValleyMercedes9-1231/995168.6%72.5%OE <75%Midland AdvantageMidland--38/9958644.7%5.5%OE <75%Nancy NeyNew Braunfels4-1228/984977.6%70.8%OE <75%New FrontiersSan Antonio--28/9865269.3%42.5%OE <75%North Hills SchoolIrving5-819/974090%0%OE <75%North Houston HS for BusinessHouston9-1231/993171%0%OE <75%Northwest Mathematics, Science, and Language AcademyHoustonPK-531/9912682.5%0%OE <75%Nova SchoolDallasPK-629/9815560.6%8.4%OE <75%NYOSAustinK-729/981357.4%7.4%OE <75%Odyssey AcademyGalveston6-1239/9917359.5%20.2%OE <75%One-Stop MultiserviceMcAllenPK, 9-1219/9617958.7%70.4%OE <75%Paso Del NorteEl Paso9-1231/9914834.5%43.9%OE <75%PegasusDallas7-918/9715660.9%40.4%OE <75%Pineywoods Community AcadLufkinK-838/9920811.1%0%OE <75%Positive SolutionsSan Antonio7-12310/9815625.6%16.7%OE <75%Prepared TableHoustonPK-1238/9982373.1%0%*75% RuleRadiance Academy of LearningSan AntonioPK-1231/992752.9%0%*75% RuleRanch AcademyCanton6-1231/994228.6%100%75% RuleRappoport AcademyWacoPK-128/987594.7%90.7%OE e" 75%Raul YzaguirreHouston6-919/9658679.9%27.3%OE <75%RenaissanceIrving7-1219/9655628.6%19.6%OE <75%Richard Milburn Corpus ChristiCorpus Christi9-1222/9912612.7%89.7%OE e" 75%Richard Milburn KilleenKilleen9-1222/991050%0%OE <75%Richard Milburn LubbockLubbock9-1229/996464.1%1.6%OE <75%Richard Milburn MidlandMidland9/1229/994531.1%100%OE e" 75%Rise AcademyLubbockK-839/993093.3%3.3%OE <75%Rylie Faith Family AcademyDallasPK-12311/9853642%0%OE <75%School of Excellence in EducSan AntonioPK-929/9849559.2%8.1%OE <75%Seashore Learning CenterCorpus ChristiPK-618/961560%10.3%OE <75%Sentry Technology Prep SchoolBrownsville9-1239/9826189.7%0%OE <75%Ser-NinosHoustonPK-418/9625889.9%95.3%OE e" 75%Shekinah  Radiance AcademySan AntonioPK-1238/991380%0%*75% RuleSouth PlainsLubbock9-1238/9914346.2%0%OE <75%Southwest High SchoolHouston9-1238/9932078.8%69.7%*75% RuleSouthwest Preparatory AcademySan Antonio9-1228/9917732.8%87%OE e" 75%Star Charter SchoolAustin1-10310/98900%0%OE <75%Technology EducationWeslaco9-1229/9813992.8%99.3%OE e" 75%Tekoa AcademyPort ArthurK-638/9915755.4%0%*75% RuleTexas Academy of ExcellenceAustinPK-219/9617860.7%59.3%OE <75%Texas Empowerment AcademyAustin5-1229/986162.3%0%OE <75%Texas LanguageDuncanvilleK-639/994266.7%0%OE <75%Texas Serenity AcademyConroe6-12, GED39/991963.2%100%OE e" 75%Texas Serenity Academy BayshoreCorpus Christi6-12, GED39/996100%100%OE e" 75%The Raven SchoolNew Waverly9-1229/98184100%100%OE e" 75%Theresa B. Lee AcademyFt. Worth9-12310/9812559.2%96.8%75% RuleTOVASTemplePK-939/994362.8%41.9%OE <75%Transformative Charter AcademyKilleen9-1229/981060%30.2%OE <75%Treetops School InternationalDFW AirportPK-1229/982213.2%15.4%OE <75%Two Dimensions Preparatory AcademyHoustonPK-839/9818559.5%36.2%*75% RuleUniversity of Houston TechHoustonK-1219/961010%20.8%OE <75%Universal AcademyDallasPK-1229/9838247.6%7.6%OE <75%University Charter SchoolAustin9-1229/981090%89.6%OE e" 75%Valley High SchoolHarlingenPK-12, GED31/9919998.5%46.7%*75% RuleVarnett Charter SchoolHoustonPK-528/9849167.4%5.5%OE <75%Wa-Set Preparatory AcademyHoustonK-339/99240%0%*75% RuleWaco Charter SchoolWacoK-515/9620281.7%77.2%OE e" 75%Waxahachie Faith Family AcademyWaxahachiePK-1231/9917254.7%60.5%OE <75%West Houston Charter SchoolHoustonK-1218/962370%21.7%OE <75% Appendix C Survey Instruments Charter School Director Survey 2000 Evaluation of Charter Schools Survey of Public School Districts Charter School Parent Survey Charter School Student Survey CHARTER SCHOOL DIRECTOR SURVEY SCHOOL NAME:_________________________________________ ID (((((( PG 1 For Charter Schools that opened during the 1999-2000 school year, complete Sections A & B. All others skip to Section C. Please use a black pen or fine tip felt marker to fill in the circles and boxes. NO PENCILS. Shade circles like this: % Not like this: (( SECTION A. REASON FOR FOUNDING CHARTER SCHOOL (for schools opened 1999-00) Charter schools have been founded for many different reasons. Would you say that the following reasons for founding your charter school were of limited or no importance, of secondary importance, or of primary importance? LIMITED OR NO IMPORTANCESECONDARY IMPORTANCEPRIMARY IMPORTANCE123 a. Realize an educational vision((( b. Serve a special student population((( c. Seek public funding((( d. Seek grants((( e. Involve parents((( f. Attract more students((( g. Gain autonomy: 1. from local school district((( 2. from state laws and regulations((( 3. in personnel matters((( 4. in educational programming((( 5. in fiscal management((( 6. to develop non-traditional relationships with community((( We would like some information on the origin of your charter school. a. Did a single individual provide the impetus for founding your charter school? ( YES ( NO If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ b. Did a group provide the impetus for founding your charter school? ( YES ( NO If yes, please describe _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ CONTINUE ON BACK ID (((((( PG 2 SECTION B. CHALLENGES INVOLVED IN OPENING YOUR CHARTER SCHOOL (for schools opened 1999-00) In the process of establishing your charter school, you may have encountered difficulties. Would you say that the following factors were not at all difficult, difficult, or very difficult to overcome in establishing your charter school? NOT AT ALL DIFFICULTDIFFICULTVERY DIFFICULT123 a. Lack of startup funds((( b. Lack of planning time((( c. Inadequate operating funds((( d. Inadequate facilities((( e. Hiring teaching staff((( f. State Board of Education approval process((( g. Local board opposition((( h. Community opposition((( i. Teacher association resistance((( j. Internal conflicts((( k. Federal education regulations((( l. regulations((( m. State or federal health & safety regulations((( 2. How much startup funding did your charter school receiver $((((((( (in dollars)? What was the source of your startup funding? __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ GO TO SECTION D For schools opened 1999-00, skip Section C ID (((((( PG 3 CHARTER SCHOOL DIRECTOR SURVEY For Charter Schools that opened before the 1999-2000 school year. SECTION C. CHALLENGES IN OPERATIONG CHARTER SCHOOLS 1. When did your charter school begin operation? (enter year) (((( 2. The second and subsequent years of charter school operation may be somewhat different from the first year for some schools. Would you say the following were easier to handle, about the same difficulty, or somewhat more difficult? EASIER TO HANDLEABOUT THE SAMEMORE DIFFICULT123 a. Realizing the original vision for the school((( b. Securing adequate funding((( c. Attracting students((( d. Involving parents((( e. Attracting and retaining teachers and other staff((( 3. In the second and subsequent years of operation, you may be encountering difficulties with certain aspects of school operation. These may be difficulties continuing from last year, or they may be new difficulties that have arisen. Would you say that the following factors were easier, about the same, difficult, or very difficult to overcome this year in your charter school? EASIER ABOUT THE SAMEDIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT1234 a. Lack of planning time(((( b. Inadequate operating funds(((( c. Inadequate facilities(((( d. Hiring teaching staff(((( e. Local board opposition(((( f. Community opposition(((( g. Teacher association resistance(((( h. Internal conflicts(((( i. Federal education regulations(((( j. regulations(((( k. Health and safety regulations(((( l. Repayment of state aid overpayment(((( m. Other___________________________________ (please name)(((( CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 4 CHARTER SCHOOL DIRECTOR SURVEY For all Charter Schools SECTION D. GOVERNANCE 1. Do you have a sponsoring organization? ( YES ( NO Name:________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do you have a governing board? ( YES ( NO (If no, go to Section E) If so, what is the role of the governing board? ___________________________________________________________________________________ How were members of the governing board selected? ___________________________________________________________________________________ Please indicate the number of board members in the following categories: On Governing Board Total number? How many are men? How many are parents of students in your school? How many are teachers in you school? How many board members are: African-American? (( Hispanic? (( Asian-American? (( e. What is the board members term of office? Years (( f. How often does the governing board meet? _______________________________________________ g. What are the officer positions of the board? ______________________________________________ h. How is the chair selected? ____________________________________________________________ i. Has the governing board adopted bylaws or rules of procedure? ( YES ( NO J. Has the governing board approved written operating policies for the school? ( YES ( NO K. does the governing board review and approve the charter school budget? ( YES ( NO SECTION E. FINANCE 1. What percent of your budget comes from the following sources? Federal government ((( d. Private grants ((( State government ((( e. Chartering organization ((( Parent donations ((( f. Other (list below) ((( Other source & percent: _______________________________________________________________ 2. Do you receive any in-kind support from your chartering organization? ( YES ( NO If yes, please describe: ____________________________________________________________________ CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 5 3. Are you currently receiving Title I funds? ( YES ( NO If no, is it because of: a. Not being eligible ( YES ( NO b. Administrative issues ( YES ( NO c. Complexity of federal regulations ( YES ( NO d. Philosophic reasons ( YES ( NO e. Other ( YES ( NO If other, please explain __________________________________________________________ 4. Please answer the following questions about students with special needs. a. How many special education students does your charter school serve? ((( b. Are you currently receiving federal funds for special education? ( YES ( NO c. How many limited English proficient (LEP) students does your school serve? ((( d. Are you currently receiving federal funds for LEP students? ( YES ( NO SECTION F. CHERS 1. How many teachers were on your faculty in the 1999-2000 school year? ((( a. How many had a college degree? ((( b. How many were certified or had vocational licenses? ((( 2. Of the teachers who started in Fall 1999, a. How many returned for the 2000-2001 school year? ((( b. How many left? ((( 1. How many left to teach in other public or private schools? ((( 2. How many left voluntarily? ((( 3. How many were terminated? ((( CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 6 SECTION G. STUDENTS 1. How many students left your charter school during the last school year? ((( a. Of the students who left, how many left for the following reasons? 1. Disciplinary problems ((( 2. Academic problems ((( 3. Moved ((( 4. Transportation problems ((( 5. Student got a job ((( 6. Medical reasons ((( 7. Student completed diploma or GED ((( 8. School didnt meet academic expectations ((( 9. Other ((( If other , please explain ________________________________________________________ b. Of the students who left, how many: 1. Went to public schools ((( 2. Went to private schools ((( 3. Dropped out ((( 2. What happens to students who do not meet the academic requirements of your school? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What percent of eligible students in the 1999-00 school year returned for classes in Fall 2000? ((( 4. What percent of students were retained in grade? ((( 5. Did you have a waiting list this past school year (1999-00)? ( YES ( NO 6. Do you have a waiting list for Fall 2000? ( YES ( NO 7. Have you added grade levels in Fall 2000? ( YES ( NO a. If yes, indicate number of increase ((( 8. Have you added grade levels in Fall 2000? ( YES ( NO a. If yes, which ones? _________________________________________________________________ 9. Which of the following recruitment techniques ( Newspaper ads ( Posters did you use for the Fall 2000 classes? ( Parent meetings ( Word of Mouth (fill in as many as apply) ( Radio ( Other ( Flyers If other, please describe _______________________________________________________________ CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 7 SECTION H. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION 1. Are you using state-adopted Texas curriculum materials? ( YES ( NO 2. Do you use other curricula? ( YES ( NO If yes, please specify _______________________________________________________________ b. Which of the following practices are you employing in your charter school? Fill in as many as apply. ( Experiential learning ( Multi-age grouping ( Individualized learning ( Mainstreaming students ( Project-based learning ( After school scheduling ( Use of simulations ( Nontraditional daily schedule ( Use of technology for learning ( Nontraditional weekly schedule ( Alternative assessments ( Nontraditional yearly schedule ( Performance-based assessments ( Community service requirements ( Graduation/learning standards ( Interdisciplinary teaching Site-based decision making SECTION I. STUDENT DISCIPLINE 1. What proportion of time is spent on student discipline by administrators? ______________ by teachers? _________________ 2. How serious do you think student discipline problems are in your school? ( Not very serious ( Somewhat serious ( Very serious 3. How often are classes typically interrupted by discipline problems? ( Almost never ( Once a week ( 2-3 times per week ( A great deal 4. To what extent does the need for student discipline interfere with the educational process at your school? ( Not at all ( Occasionally ( Pretty regularly ( A great deal 5. How many incidents have you dealt with this past year involving: a. Alcohol ((( d. Knives ((( b. Drugs ((( e. Assault ((( c. Guns ((( CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 8 SECTION J. PARENTS 1. What parent participation practices do you have at your charter school? (Fill in all that apply) ( Regularly scheduled parentteacher meetings ( Regularly scheduled homeschool communications ( Regularly scheduled parent meetings ( Offering workshops or support groups for parents ( Offering referrals to other social or health services agencies ( Offering opportunities for parents to volunteer at the school ( Offering parent athome learning activities to support school objectives ( Requiring parents to sign homework ( Requiring parents to work at the school ( Written plan or contract for parent involvement ( Serving on schoolwide committees ( Acting as teacher/instructors ( Other, please describe _____________________________________________________________ 2. What percent of parents are involved in the following activities? a. Tutoring ((( b. Community projects ((( c. Fund raising ((( d. Mentoring ((( e. Class presentations ((( f. Teaching assistants ((( g: Maintenance of physical plant ((( h. Other, please describe ((( ________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION K. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS 1. Do you have community or business partnerships for any of the following activities? (Fill in all that apply) ( Mentoring ( Tutoring ( Job shadowing ( Field trips ( Monetary donations ( Equipment donations ( Donations of time (volunteers) CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 9 2. What organizations have assisted your charter school in the past year? (Fill in all that apply) ( The Charter School Resource Center of Texas ( The ( A college or university ( A school district ( A regional education service center ( Other, please describe _______________________________________________________________ SECTION L. SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT 1. Are you aware of any changes that have occurred in the districts from which your students are drawn from as a consequence of your charter school? ( YES ( NO If yes, please describe ___________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you describe your relationship with the school districts from which your students are drawn? ( Hostile ( Neutral ( Somewhat cooperative ( Cooperative SECTION M. DIRECTOR OF PRINCIPAL 1. Is mid-management certification required for the job that you have? ( YES ( NO 2. What is your highest educational level? _______________________________________________________ 3. How much prior public school experience do you have? (enter years) a. Teaching (( b. Administration (( 4. How much prior private school experience do you have? a. Teaching (( b. Administration (( 5. Do you teach regularly scheduled classes at your charter school? ( YES ( NO 6. Are you the CEO of your charter school? ( YES ( NO a. If no, who is the CEO? _______________________________________________________________ b. Do you report directly to him/her? ( YES ( NO CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE ID (((((( PG 10 COMMENTS Is there anything else you would like to add? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If we should have questions, who was primarily responsible for completing this form? Name ________________________________________________________________________________ Title ________________________________________________________________________________ Address _______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ e-mail _____________________________________________ Phone __________________________ THANK YO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME If you have questions regarding the survey, please call Dr. Delbert Taebel at 817-272-3071. Please return the completed questionnaire To: Dr. Delbert Taebel University of Texas at Arlington School of Urban and Public Affairs PO Box 19588 Arlington, TX 76019-6588 OR Fax the completed questionnaire to: (817) 272-5008 ATTN: Dr. Delbert Taebel 2000 EVALUATION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS SURVEY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Texas State Board of Education commissioned this study of charter school effects on public school districts. Please complete this questionnaire (or delegate the task to the appropriate person in your district) and return it by June 19, 2000 in the postage-paid envelope. If you have questions about the survey, or if you prefer to answer by telephone or fax, please call Catherine Clark or Dana Beebe at 800-580-8237. Identification Information: School district name ____________________________________________________________ Job title ______________________________________________________________________ Has one or more charter schools opened in or near your district? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Have any of the following occurred in your district? (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Charter school issues have been included in the districts board agenda. ___ District administrators have met to discuss issues concerning charter schools. ___ The presence of charter schools has influenced the district to consider future implementation of new programs or practices. ___ The district has created (or is considering creation of) campus charter schools. ___ The district has held parent meetings to discuss charter school issues. ___ The district has formulated an official position statement on charter schools. ___ News coverage for charter schools has detracted from coverage for district schools. Do you think charter schools have affected your school district or the larger community in any way? ___ No, there have been no discernable effects from charter schools. ___Yes, effects have been (Please mark one from each column.) ___ mild ___ neutral ___ moderate ___ detrimental ___ strong ___ beneficial If no effects were noted, please fill in the information below and return the questionnaire now. May we contact you to discuss charter school issues in your district? ___ yes ___ no If yes, please provide a name and phone number or email address: _________________________________ _____________________________________ NAME PHONE/EMAIL For districts who noted effects on the previous question: 4. Did students leave schools in your district to attend charter schools during the most recent school year? (If no or not sure, go to question 6.) ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Which students typically leave district schools to attend charter schools? (Please mark all that apply.) ___ at-risk students ___ special education students ___ average-ability students ___ students seeking a GED ___ high-ability students ___ other _______________________________ Do you anticipate that additional students will leave schools in your district to attend charter schools next year? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Did any students begin attending charter schools after having previously dropped out of a school in your district? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Did any students return to or transfer to schools in your district from charter schools? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure 9. Did charter schools in your area have a financial effect on your district during the most recent school year? (Please mark no or yes, then choose from reasons listed.) ___ No, there was not a financial effect because (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Funding is not considered lost by the district because charter schools are funded directly from the state. ___ Losses in state and/or federal funding for departing students were offset by gains in enrollment. ___ Students who left typically were more expensive to educate. ___ No studentsor an insignificant number of studentsleft the district. ___ Other reason ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ___ Yes, there was a financial effect because (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Financial effects on districts should be measured directly as lost ADA funding. The district lost approximately $____________. ___ The district lost approximately $____________ in federal funding it would have received. ___ Diminished accuracy in fall enrollment estimates made it difficult to budget for personnel, materials, and overhead. ___ Students left charter schools and re-enrolled in district schools after the fall enrollment count period. ___ Other reason ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Did contact occur between district educators and charter school educators during the most recent school year? ___ No ___Yes, contact occurred ___ infrequently ___ fairly often ___ on a regular basis If yes, is any mechanism in place to identify successful charter school practices and share them with district educators? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Has your district changed its educational policies, programs, or services in response to the presence of charter schools in the area? (Please mark no or yes, then choose from reasons or examples listed.) ___ No, because (please mark all that apply.) ___ Programs or services offered by charter schools are already available in district schools. ___ Area charter schools serve specialized populations or offer special programs that our district cannot offer. ___ Area charter schools are too small or too far from district schools to affect their programs and services. ___ Other ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ___ Yes, for example (Please mark all that apply.) ___ The district increased efforts to improve public relations or to market its schools. ___ The district instituted smaller schools or schools-within-schools. ___ The district established campus or program charter schools. ___ The district expanded its array of inter-district or intra-district choice options. ___ The district began contracting out for more educational services such as those for at-risk students. ___ District schools increased efforts to involve parents and community members in school activities or governance. ___ District schools expanded their offerings of educational programs or services. ___ District schools adopted one or more practices similar to area charter schools. ___ Other ______________________________________________________________ Did any educators leave your district to work in charter schools during the most recent school year? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Were class sizes in any of your district schools affected due to charter schools during the most recent school year? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Has educator morale in district schools been affected by charter schools? (Please mark one of the three main options, then choose from reasons, if applicable.) ___ 1. There has been no discernable effect on educator morale. ___ 2. Morale has improved because (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Educators see charter schools as sources of good ideas and information. ___ Area charter schools provide educational opportunities for students who are not currently being appropriately served in district schools. ___ Charter schools have attracted hard-to-educate students. ___ Charter schools have provided alternatives for dissatisfied parents. ___ Educators welcome additional educational choices for all students in the district. ___ Other ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ___ 3. Morale has deteriorated because (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Educators are concerned about public perception of their schools as less desirable than charter schools. ___ The departure of colleagues, students, or supportive parents for charter schools creates an atmosphere of loss or uncertainty. ___ Educators are worried that special-needs students in charter schools may not get an appropriate education. ___ Educators dislike losing high-achieving students to area charter schools. ___ Educators dislike losing supportive, involved parents to area charter schools. ___ Educators regard increased student mobility as disruptive of the educational process. ___ Other ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Have charter schools affected the level of parent involvement in district schools? ___ yes ___ no ___ not sure Have charter schools affected students currently attending district schools? (Please mark yes or no, then choose from reasons, if applicable.) ___ No, there has been no discernable effect on students attending district schools. ___ Yes, because (Please mark all that apply.) ___ Students seem pleased that an alternative educational setting is available in the area. ___ It seems important to students that people view their school as equal or superior to charter schools. ___ There is animosity between students attending district schools and charter schools. ___ Other ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Please write any additional comments about open-enrollment charter schools below: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE ENTERED THE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION AT THE TOP OF PAGE 1 BEFORE RETURNING IT. Catherine Clark Texas Center for Educational Research P.O. Box 2947 Austin, TX 78768-2947  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Parents of Texas and Spring Branch Charter School Children July2, 2001 ___________ ID: Parents Name__________________________________________________________ Phone Number: Area Code______ Number__________________________________ Charter School Name______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Hello, my name is _______________ and I am calling from the University of Houstons Center for Public Policy on behalf of the . May I speak to the parent or guardian of (STUDENTS NAME)? Hello. My name is ______________ and I am calling to request your participation in a research project being conducted by Dr. Gregory Weiher at the University of Houston. The is required by state law to evaluate the Charter School program and we would like to ask you some questions to assess your experience with your childs charter school. The provided Dr. Weiher with school rosters and your child was selected based on a random sampling procedure. Your participation is voluntary and you may end this interview at any time. The purpose of this survey is to compare the experience and satisfaction levels of charter school parents and parents of children in traditional schools. Our interview will take approximately 20 minutes and is not intended to cause any personal distress. This is not a sales call. May I continue? ( ) Yes (continue) ( ) No (thank person and terminate call) As I mentioned, we are conducting a survey of parents or guardians of (charter/public) school children. Your responses are strictly confidential. A summary of the data we gather will be reported to the , the State Board of Education, and state legislators. However at no time will individual subjects be identified. If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Dr. Gregory Weiher, Senior Research Associate of the University of Houstons Center for Public Policy at 713.743.3970. If you have any questions regarding your participation as a subject you can contact the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at 713.743.9204. Would you like to participate in this interview? ( ) Yes (continue) ( ) No (thank person and terminate call) If yes For parents of children in Charter Schools, we would like to gather information about your experience with your childs charter school. Please answer the questions regarding the charter school your child attended last year. If you have more than one child in a charter school, the questions will be about your OLDEST child who attended a Charter School last year. Let me remind you that you can refuse to answer any question or terminate this interview at any time. First, am I correct in saying that at some point in the past you made a decision to send your child to a charter school? (IF NO, TERMINATE) Respondent Gender: Male___1 Female___2 1. We need to start with some background information. First, in what year were you born? 19____ 2. Do you own or rent your home? (RECORD) Own___1 Rent___2 OTHER___3 3. Wed like to start with some questions about the community where you live. How many years have you lived in your community?_______ 4. Do you expect to be living in your community five years from now? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 5. Which of the following best describes your race or ethnicity? (READ OPTIONS) White or Anglo__1 Black or African-American__2 Hispanic or Mexican-American___3 Asian or Asian-American___4 Native-American___5 OTHER___6 6. Is the community where you live predominately white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian-or American? White or Anglo__1 Black or African-American__2 Hispanic or Mexican-American__3 Asian or Asian-American__4 Native-American__5 OTHER__6 7. Overall, how would you rate your community as a place to liveexcellent, good, only fair or poor? Excellent___1 Good___2 UNSURE___3 Only Fair___4 Poor___5 8. What is the gender of your oldest child who attended a Charter School last year? (RECORD) Male___1 Female___2 9. How many years has that child attended a Charter School? One year or less___1 Two years___2 Three or more___3 UNSURE___4 10. What was your childs grade or school year last year? (RECORD 1 through 12, if K code 0) ___________________ 11. When you were considering sending your child to a Charter school, did you feel at the time that you had a lot of information about the Charter school, some information, just a little, or none at all? A lot___1 Some___2 A little___3 None___4 UNSURE___5 12. When you were considering sending your child a Charter school, did you get any information about the school off the Internet? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 13. Did you consult written brochures or written descriptions of the Charter school when you were making this decision? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 14. Charter schools in your area differ greatly. I would like to read you a description of a proposed new charter school, the Meadow Brook School, and ask you to rate the likelihood on a zero to ten scale that would you would consider sending one of your children a school like this one. Zero means you would definitely not consider sending your child a school like the Meadow Brook school, and 10 means you would seriously consider sending your child to the Meadow Brook school, and you may use any number in between. [IF PARENT IS BLACK OR HISPANIC ASK] Form 1 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is one-third black, one-third white and one-third Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 2 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% black, 10% white and 10% Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 3 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% Hispanic, 10% black and 10% White, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 4 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is one-third black, one-third white and one-third Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 5 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% black, 10% white and 10% Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 6 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% Hispanic, 10% black and 10% White, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. UNSURE REFUSED 0 - - - 1 - - - 2 - - -3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 77 99 [IF PARENT IS WHITE, ASIAN OR OTHER ASK] Form 1 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is one-third black, one-third white and one-third Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 2 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% black, 10% white and 10% Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 3 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score significantly above the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stre 0 K L r s F''')n))*;;g=|=n@p@;H]HKK*YnYoY\\e^w^eeffgguuuvvkylymyyyyαțÒ h(>* h(6 h(6CJh(5CJ\ h(CJjh(0JU h(CJjh(5U\ h(6] h(\ h(CJ h(5\ h(5 h(CJ(h( h(5CJ0 h(CJ h(5CJ h(5CJ 2#6JWXYZ[\k~ $$dNa$$a$$a$     0 H I J L M r s t $a$$a$$a$] $$dNa$$a$t ; K f * G [ ' E q  *  X * + Z ;KYp'b{ ?i  !X  X i Py\/Ok?e X $^p@n  2Qn?l X l qM pX @@J`^`` pX @@@J`^``$ pX @@@J`^``a$ ! X `  !X  X #Z1qZI pX @@J` pX @@J pX @@J^ pX @@J`^``FZ , a !-!.!/!0!>q@r@3C$a$  !pX @@@J  !pX @@@J3C4C,E-EFJJKKKK_O`OQQS-U.UWW)Y*Y3YnYpY\\\\`\\\%]]]] ^d^e^w^x^``aa=d>dee#eeeegggg^` L^`Lgg>hdhhhh#i$i_i`iiik kkkllmmnnoo & F gdG !  & F !gdG ^^oppppTqUqqq+s,suuuuuuvvlymyyyz|{|}} !$a$ & F gdGy{||}} т *ĎŎ C ]iGrѣަ-.oêpbcPFNz\%-Z^㩢㩢㩢 h(CJ] h(6CJh(5>*CJ\h(5CJ\ h(6 h(5 h(5\ h(\jh(0JU h(CJ h(5CJ h(56 h(>*h(@}}}Ђтڇۇ .N $$Ifa$NOPQ^o~WNNNNNN $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4F:,"``L %%%0    4 laf4p%%%93** $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl4\:," L L (%%%%04 laf4p(%%%%*ߋ >ca_aaWWWW & FgdGkd8$$Ifl\:,"04 la $$Ifa$ >8ˍjĎŎ &'CD\] 2 h^h & FgdG & FgdG]FGݦަ-.9no~ $$Ifa$$If !éɩϩ<6)) $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\  ! b (%%%%0x!4 lap(%%%%ϩթ֩_Y$Ifkd$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 la $@$If]@a$ lfYYY $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 la "lfYYY $@$If]@a$$Ifkdy$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 la"#@FLQlfYYY $@$If]@a$$Ifkd/$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 laQR]cgklfYL? $d$If]da$ $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 lakllfYYY $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 lalfYYY $@$If]@a$$IfkdQ$$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 lapq=>bcKLбlffdffffffd !kd $$Ifl\  ! b0x!4 la бѱܱ';O $$Ifa$OPcio<6)) $$If]a$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"6 pp (%%%%04 lap(%%%%ouv_Y$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 la $$If]a$lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 laƲlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkdj $$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 laƲDzܲlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 la lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 la %*/lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 la/06;@ElfYYY $$If]a$$IfkdB$$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 laEF{¶ζljjjjjhhj_ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\:,"6 pp04 la .LZ $$Ifa$Z\<6)) $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p (04 lap(ʸָ_Y$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p04 la $$If]a$ lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p04 la*4>HlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd[$$Ifl\$ ," p04 laHJtlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p04 laƹҹlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p04 laҹԹ lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\$ ," p04 la$lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkdk$$Ifl\$ ," p04 la$%Zljjjjjjjhhhkd/$$Ifl\$ ," p04 la ;!689  P[pqr`aw#c> (:)loۺ h(6] h(CJh(6CJ]jh(0JU h(CJ] h(6CJ h(CJ h(5CJ h(5h(5CJ\h( h(6D:;Uep~ $$Ifa$$If !~ZTGG $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p 0    4 lapyll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 layll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 la#yll $$If]a$$IfkdH$$IflF !p0    4 la#$8>Dyll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 laDEZclyll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 lalmyll $$If]a$$IfkdR$$IflF !p0    4 layll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 layll $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF !p0    4 la yll $$If]a$$Ifkd\$$IflF !p0    4 la89yyyyyywwuo$If !kd $$IflF !p0    4 la +3-$Ifkd$$Ifl\#000 (04 lap( $$Ifa$+05:;SX]b_Y$Ifkd $$Ifl\#00004 la $$If]a$bclfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkdi!$$Ifl\#00004 lalfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd"$$Ifl\#00004 lalfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd"$$Ifl\#00004 la (lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkda#$$Ifl\#00004 la()>DJPlfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd $$$Ifl\#00004 laPQ~lfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd$$$Ifl\#00004 lalfYYY $$If]a$$IfkdY%$$Ifl\#00004 lalfYYY $$If]a$$Ifkd&$$Ifl\#00004 la <=lfddddddddd !kd&$$Ifl\#00004 la CkdQ'$$IfTlFxB p 0    4 lapT $$Ifa$$If4:@AgnuhkdN($$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT $$If]a$$Ifuv{uhh $$If]a$$Ifkd)$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT{uhh $$If]a$$Ifkd)$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT{uhh $$If]a$$Ifkdd*$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT%,2{uhh $$If]a$$Ifkd+$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT23BIO{uhh $$If]a$$Ifkd+$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laTOPqrvw{usssqqqssso !kdz,$$IfTlFxB p0    4 laT "#C_Gkd,-$$IflF  !  h 0    4 lap $$Ifa$$If_qrykd.$$IflF  !  h 0    4 la$If-yyy$Ifkd.$$IflF  !  h 0    4 la-.oyyy$IfkdW/$$IflF  !  h 0    4 la}}}}{{}ull $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$IflF  !  h 0    4 la I[ZTTT$Ifkd0$$IflF     0    4 lap[\kyyy$Ifkd1$$IflF     0    4 layyy$Ifkd"2$$IflF     0    4 la%&bco}{{{{{{{{ul $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$IflF     0    4 la 0kdb3$$Ifl4\TTTT!`   (04 laf4p( $$Ifa$  '/6=>HKOSWZ^ $ $If] a$$IfFf5 $$Ifa$^_jn3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd/8$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 lanrvz~ $ $If] a$3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd8$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 la $ $If] a$3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd9$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 la $ $If] a$"31111kdo:$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 la9:G $$Ifa$$If 90000 $$Ifa$kd/;$$Ifl4\TTTT!`   (04 laf4p(()48<@DGJ $ $If] a$$IfFf= $$Ifa$JKVZ3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd?$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 laZ]adhl $ $If] a$ $$Ifa$lmz~3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd@$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 la~ $ $If] a$ $$Ifa$;l31111kdjA$$Ifl֞T TTT!04 la_`./$%PQopjk  $a$`d%7 *PopPk -            OX7GMǾǾǾǾ֟֘ h(CJ] h(6CJ h(5CJ h(\h(56CJ\] h(CJ\h(5CJ\h(5>*CJ\ h(5 h(CJh(56CJ h(CJ h(6 h(>* h(56h(6      ~            $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ !  . 4 : ? <6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd*B$$Ifl\Z'  F (04 lap(? @ H N T Y lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdC$$Ifl\Z'  F04 laY Z b h n s lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdD$$Ifl\Z'  F04 las t     lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdrE$$Ifl\Z'  F04 la       lff]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdeF$$Ifl\Z'  F04 la      <6--- $$Ifa$$IfkdfG$$Ifl\Z'  F (04 lap(     lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdH$$Ifl\Z'  F04 la  !lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdI$$Ifl\Z'  F04 la!"=CINlf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdJ$$Ifl\Z'  F04 laNO67lffdbbbb``d !kdK$$Ifl\Z'  F04 la 7DXfghmrwHkdL$$Ifl4F4 `P  0    4 laf4p $$Ifa$$Ifw|$IfFf O $$Ifa$ 3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdKQ$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la $$Ifa$3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd R$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la  $$Ifa$"(.3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la.4:@F $$Ifa$FGno31///kdS$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 laMmv(TwxT$V$$$%%%&&A&B&z&{&&&&&&&----22#3\33333444t5 677 7!7w:x:::::::;;<$=4=迹訡 h(6 h(CJ] h(6CJjh(0JU h(CJ h(6CJ h(5CJh(56CJ h(5 h(CJ jh( h(CJ h(5CJh( h(6]=tv $$Ifa$$If &WNNNNNNN $$Ifa$kdKT$$Ifl4F4 `P  0    4 laf4p&(HT`lx $$Ifa$$IfFfV3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdX$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la $$Ifa$ 3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdY$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la " $$Ifa$"#/5;3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdnZ$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 la;AGMS $$Ifa$STU("T$V$3111/kd.[$$Ifl֞ T4 P88888804 laV$n$$$$"%6%B%l%% $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ %%kd[$$Ifl4rl |,"` 204 laf4p2%%%%%%%%&&&&&&#&)&/&5&;&A&$IfFf^ $$Ifa$A&B& kdsa$$Ifl lD |T,"0$$$$4 laB&J&P&V&\&b&h&n&t&z& $$Ifa$$If z&{& kd5b$$Ifl lD |T,"0$$$$4 la{&&&&&&&&&& $$Ifa$$If && kdb$$Ifl lD |T,"0$$$$4 la&&&f+g+----//222"3#373M3[3 $$Ifa$$If $a$[3\3l3r3x3ZTK> $1$If]1a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$IflF * p 0    4 lalpx3y3333ypc $1$If]1a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$IflF * p0    4 lal33333ypc $1$If]1a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdpe$$IflF * p0    4 lal33333ypc $1$If]1a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd#f$$IflF * p0    4 lal3333445r5t55ywwwyync  !$If $ !a$ !kdf$$IflF * p0    4 lal 555 66 $ !$Ifa$6 6;6  !$Ifkdg$$Iflr 4 T! TT4 204 lap2;6A6G6M6S6T6d6j6K@  !$Ifkdh$$Iflr 4 T! TT404 la $ !$Ifa$j6p6v6|6}6666K@  !$Ifkdi$$Iflr 4 T! TT404 la $ !$Ifa$66666666K@  !$Ifkddj$$Iflr 4 T! TT404 la $ !$Ifa$66666666K@  !$Ifkd0k$$Iflr 4 T! TT404 la $ !$Ifa$67!7"7w:x:::;;YSSSQSSSS !kdk$$Iflr 4 T! TT404 la ;;;;;<<<^<< $ !$Ifa$  !$If $ !a$ !<<<  !$Ifkdl$$IflrplT!b 204 lap2<<<<<<<G<  !$Ifkdn$$IflrplT!b04 la$ !$If]a$<==="=$=f=h=GAA !kdn$$IflrplT!b04 la$ !$If]a$4=d=f=4?N?AABBCClDD.F/F\F]FEG]GdJJnLLMNSTT,TVVVxWXYYYI]s]^m`#gMg=h>hqhrhllllll m m~pqqrrsssww h(5 h(] h(>*] h(CJ h(5CJ h(6] jh(jh(0JU h(>* h(6 h(CJh( h(6CJ h(CJ]Bh=3?4?N?O?AAAABBkDlDDGEGcJdJmLnLMMQQSSTTUU $a$UUTVVVXVhVxVV $$Ifa$VVVV<6- $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl\j U@ (04 lap(VVVVVVVV_Y$Ifkdp$$Ifl\j U@04 la $@$If]@a$VVW"W.WWNW\WjWvWlfYYY $@$If]@a$$Ifkdq$$Ifl\j U@04 lavWxWX|XXXYY[]]]H]ljjjjjjjjjhhkdr$$Ifl\j U@04 la H]I]J]R]Z]e]r] $$Ifa$r]s]|]$Ifkd*s$$Iflrj U@+" 204 lap2|]]]]]]^C=$Ifkd=t$$Iflrj U@+"04 la $@$If]@a$ $$Ifa$^^^(^4^6^R^Z^f^LF$Ifkdt$$Iflrj U@+"04 la $@$If]@a$f^r^~^^^^^^^LF$Ifkdu$$Iflrj U@+"04 la $@$If]@a$^^d_`C`m`n` d d"gYWWWWWWWWkd#v$$Iflrj U@+"04 la "g#gMgNghh8l9loo|p~ppqq*q:qJqbq $ !$Ifa$ $ !a$ !bqdqqqq9+++ $ !$Ifa$kdv$$Ifl4\N l$fTj (0$4 laf4p(qqqqqqqr rrrr$ !h$If]ha$  !$IfFfKy $ !$Ifa$ rr#r+r3((  !$IfkdN{$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 la+r1r7r;rArGr$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$GrHrPrXr3((  !$Ifkd2|$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 laXr^rdrhrnrtr$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$trur~rr3((  !$Ifkd}$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 larrrrrr$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$rrrrr3%%% $ !$Ifa$kd}$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 larrrrrrrrrrrs$ !h$If]ha$  !$IfFf? $ !$Ifa$ ss ss3((  !$IfkdB$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 lasss#s)s/s$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$/s0s8s?s3((  !$Ifkd&$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 la?sEsKsOsUs[s$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$[s\sdsls3((  !$Ifkd $$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 lalsrsxs{sss$ !h$If]ha$ $ !$Ifa$ssssuu3---- !kd$$Ifl֞N l$fT0$4 lauwwzzt}u}  $ !$Ifa$ $ !a$ ! "ZdnWIIII $ !$Ifa$kd҅$$Ifl4Fj +" 0    4 laf4p9..  !$Ifkd$$Ifl4\j U@+"   (04 laf4p(Ȁʀ؀9.  !$IfkdƇ$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$؀  .kdb$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$  !$If *6BJ$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$  !$IfJL\lxYNN@@ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifkd$$Iflrj U@+"04 la؁G9999 $ !$Ifa$kd$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ځr݂ނ߂ď( 8z{ƝžĞΞО؞8ڤz!YߨrstϯЯѯ㯧㚒 h(6]j h(UjI? h(CJUVjOh(UjI? h(CJUV h(5\ h(\ h(>*CJ h(6CJjh(U h(5h( h(] h(CJ] h(5CJ h(CJ6؁ځ9..  !$Ifkd6$$Ifl4\j U@+"   (04 laf4p(  9.  !$Ifkd?$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$#)./.kdۋ$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$  !$If/7>DJN$ !@$If]@a$ $ !$Ifa$  !$IfNOXagmYNN@@ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifkdw$$Iflrj U@+"04 lamqr߂deĊGE???? !kd$$Iflrj U@+"04 la$ !@$If]@a$ĊŊ~opÏďя&(8HXh $ !$Ifa$ $ !a$ !kd$$Ifl4r z&U\  20 '4 laf4p2Đΐؐܐ ,28>BHNTVhvFf$ !$If]a$  !$IfFfǐ $ !$Ifa$Αܑ !Ff(  !$IfFfԗ$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$!'-17=CDKRZ`flpv|FfСFf|  !$If$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$’Ff$  !$If$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$ kd6$$Ifl4ִH~(#&***v0 '    4 laf4 "').389AIQW]cgmsyzFf$ !$If]a$  !$IfFf- $ !$Ifa$ȓϓՓۓFf  !$IfFfH$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$ $*067>EMSY_ekqwxFfDFf  !$If$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$ԔڔFf  !$If$ !$If]a$ $ !$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4ִH~(#&***v0 '    4 laf4  uvyzžĞ xޠ8  !^ !6 $ !$Ifa$  !$If68p|<1# $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifkd$$Ifl\ lL,"  (04 lap(|̤ؤ^S  !$Ifkd$$Ifl\ lL," 04 la $ !$Ifa$ؤڤܤXYdߨ rlffffff]ff $ !a$ !kd$$Ifl\ lL," 04 la rsڬ۬ЯѯݯJLdt $ !$Ifa$  !$If $ !a$ !ѯLְ<=W &GH./1,-.Z  msBHR(*h(56\]h(5CJ\ h(5\ h(CJ h(5CJ h(] h(CJ] h(6CJ h(CJh(6CJ] h(6h( h(CJ h(5CJ h(5=9+++ $ !$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4\ t"`  (0"4 laf4p(ʰ԰ְ $  !$IfFf $ !$Ifa$ $&D3(  !$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ t" 0"4 laDP\ht $ !$Ifa$Ʊ3(  !$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ t" 0"4 laƱұޱ $ !$Ifa$3(  !$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ t" 0"4 la#)/5; $ !$Ifa$;<=<=W3---- !kdy$$Ifl֞ t" 0"4 laWXqr&.6>J$ !$&`#$/Ifa$ ! JK kdO$$Ifl4r }#C   6`20#4 laf4p2Khmrw}ûȻͻѻһۻFf[ !$&`#$/IfFft$ !$&`#$/Ifa$  ',16:?DIMNV^FfFf$ !$&`#$/Ifa$ !$&`#$/If^fkpuy~¼Ǽ˼̼ԼܼFfFfu$ !$&`#$/Ifa$ !$&`#$/Ifܼ  T $$Ifa$ Z^Z`Ff1$ !$&`#$/Ifa$ !$&`#$/If Nkdw$$Ifl4F  @   0    4 laf4p $$Ifa$ %&.6;@DINR $$If]a$ $$If]a$$IfFf $$Ifa$ RS[ $IfkdR$$Iflִ4 |$t 0    4 la[bglpuz~ $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If~ $Ifkd$$Iflִ4 |$t 0    4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If $Ifkd$$Iflִ4 |$t 0    4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfIJ kd$$Iflִ4 |$t 0    4 laJ?@L $$Ifa$ $IfkdZ$$Iflr "P 204 lap2?9$Ifkd$$Iflr "P04 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ 6kdA$$Iflr "P04 la $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$"&).2 $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$If23AFKOTYSFF99 $$If]a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr "P04 laTUcglqvYSFF99 $$If]a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr "P04 lavwYSFF99 $$If]a$ $$If]a$$Ifkdi$$Iflr "P04 laYSFF99 $$If]a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd!$$Iflr "P04 la01=YWWWWRII $$Ifa$$a$kd$$Iflr "P04 la $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr "P 20"4 lap2?9$Ifkd$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$?9$Ifkdx$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$#'(6?9$Ifkd0$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$6:>BGHV?9$Ifkd$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$VZ^bghv?9$Ifkd$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$v{?9$IfkdX$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ ?=kd$$Iflr "P0"4 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ !<=kl,-.Z[\z{ pX @@@J !{FG  1T| $$Ifa$$If:4++ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,": (%%%%064 lap(%%%%*2:Bb\$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 la $$Ifa$BDdlt|ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 la|~ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 la ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 la(,04ke\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdO $$Ifl\L4.,":064 la45vz~ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\L4.,":064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\L4.,":064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\L4.,":064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\L4.,":064 la%)-1ke\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdK $$Ifl\L4.,":064 la12`dhlke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 lalm~kiiiiiiiic$Ifkd$$Ifl\L4.,":064 la Nv1kd$$Ifl\z,"> (%%%%064 lap(%%%% $$Ifa$ \kd$$Ifl\z,">064 la $$Ifa$$If JRZbke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 labdke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$Ifl\z,">064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$Ifl\z,">064 la $(ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 la()?CGKke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 laKLjnrvke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 lavwke\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdH$$Ifl\z,">064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\z,">064 la 59=Ake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$Ifl\z,">064 laABRS(kiiiigiiiiikd+$$Ifl\z,">064 la (* $$Ifa$$If)-1:4++ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ^ !  (%%%%064 lalp(%%%%156PTX\b\$Ifkd-$$Ifl\ ^ ! 064 lal $$Ifa$\]ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ^ ! 064 lalke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ^ ! 064 lalke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkdu$$Ifl\ ^ ! 064 lalYZ@kiiiiiiicZ $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$Ifl\ ^ ! 064 lal YJ$ p r " /~ %&67PQlm  !!""A"B"_",%%% &"'b+++,,,.00024s55566P78>>jh(0JUh(5CJ\h(6CJ] h(CJh(5CJ\ h(5\h( h(CJMH $$Ifa$HJv$Ifkd$$IflrL|R$t"P 2%%%%%0(#64 lap2%%%%%v~OI$Ifkdf!$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 la $$Ifa$ OI$IfkdV"$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 la $$Ifa$7;?CGXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd8#$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 laGH^bfjnXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 lanoXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 laXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 laXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 la XRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 la<@DHLXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 laLMdhlptXRIIII $$Ifa$$Ifkdf)$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 latuXRIIII $$Ifa$$IfkdH*$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 laE F B C XVVVVVVVVkd*+$$IflrL|R$t"P0(#64 la C } ~   " $ < p r   ! $$Ifa$$If!"6:>:4++ $$Ifa$$Ifkd ,$$Ifl\ X  DDD (%%%%064 lap(%%%%>BCGKOSb\$Ifkd4-$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 la $$Ifa$STcgkoke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 laopy}ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdC/$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdD1$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 la:;kiiiiiiiiiiikd1$$Ifl\ X  DDD064 la  '/bkd2$$Ifl40 $` x %%064 lalf4p%% $$Ifa$$If /0?CIUOFF $$Ifa$$Ifkdz3$$Ifl4F L$   %%%06    4 lalf4p%%%IJX\b~xoo $$Ifa$$Ifkd4$$IflF L$ 06    4 lalbc~~xoo $$Ifa$$Ifkd05$$IflF L$ 06    4 lal~~|z||||||||t$Ifkd5$$IflF L$ 06    4 lal $2z $$Ifa$$Ifkd6$$Iflrjlt"(0 2%%%%%0"64 lap2%%%%%  >8$Ifkd8$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$$*067F>8$Ifkd8$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$FKPUZ[a>8$Ifkd9$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$afkpuv>8$Ifkd:$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$>8$Ifkd;$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$><kd_<$$Iflrjlt"(00"64 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$de   $$Ifa$$If XREE $$If]a$$Ifkd<=$$IflF HD pp %%%0$6    4 lap%%%%~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdF>$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 la%&,16~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd>$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 la67FKP~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd?$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 laPQbgl~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd=@$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 lalm~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd@$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 laDE    (!J!~||||||||vmm $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$IflF HD pp0$6    4 la J!Z!!! $$Ifa$!!!$Ifkd&B$$Iflr\  tT 2%%%%%0f!64 lap2%%%%%!" """")"/"5"OI$IfkdC$$Iflr\  tT0f!64 la $$Ifa$5";"A"B"G"M"S"Y"_"OI$IfkdD$$Iflr\  tT0f!64 la $$Ifa$_"`"a"/$0$,%-%:%%%XVVVVVVVVkd^E$$Iflr\  tT0f!64 la %%% & &!&'&I< $$If]a$kd;F$$IflF !CC %%%0x!6    4 lap%%% $$Ifa$$If'&-&.&N&T&Z&qk$Ifkd)G$$IflF !CC0x!6    4 la $$If]a$Z&[&&&&~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdG$$IflF !CC0x!6    4 la&&&&&~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdoH$$IflF !CC0x!6    4 la&&''!'~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdI$$IflF !CC0x!6    4 la!'"'#'(())a+b+p++++~|||z||||||t$IfkdI$$IflF !CC0x!6    4 la +,8,F,~,,0kdXJ$$Ifl4\L,!`pp (%%%%0t"4 laf4p(%%%% $$Ifa$,,,,,,,,,- ---*-0-<- $$If]a$ $ $If] a$FfM $$Ifa$$If<->-V-\-3- $ $If] a$$IfkdGO$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la\-h-n-z--- $ $If] a$ $$If]a$----3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd6P$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la------ $ $If] a$ $$If]a$--. .3- $ $If] a$$Ifkd%Q$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la .....#. $ $If] a$ $$If]a$#.$...1.3- $ $If] a$$IfkdR$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la1.7.:.@.C.I. $ $If] a$ $$If]a$I.J.S.V.3- $ $If] a$$IfkdS$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 laV.\._.e.h.n. $ $If] a$ $$If]a$n.o.}..3- $ $If] a$$IfkdS$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la...... $ $If] a$ $$If]a$...00031111kdT$$Ifl֞L ,d.!p88880t"4 la0000282F2~2 $$Ifa$$If~2222293** $$Ifa$$IfkdU$$Ifl4\LPx!`p$ p( (%%%%04 laf4p(%%%%22222222333 3,3 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$IfFfX $$Ifa$ ,3.3T3Z33- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd [$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 laZ3f3l3x3~33 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$33333- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd[$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 la333333 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$33333- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd\$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 la344 444 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$44)4,43- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd]$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 la,42454;4>4D4 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$D4E4O4R43- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd^$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 laR4X4[4a4d4j4 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$j4k4w4z43- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd_$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 laz444444 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$44443- $h$If]ha$$Ifkd`$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 la444444 $V$If]Va$ $e$If]ea$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$44444r531/11kda$$Ifl֞LN Px!p88804 lar5s555556F666 $$Ifa$$If 666$Ifkdb$$Ifl4rO o"`D 2%%%%%0#64 laf4p2%%%%%66677"727@7P7R7777777777 $$If]a$ $H$If]Ha$ $$Ifa$ $ $If] a$Ffe$If77 kdh$$Ifl O6 oV"D0#6$$$$4 la7 88888#8)8,828 $$If]a$ $H$If]Ha$ $$Ifa$ $ $If] a$$If 2838 kdi$$Ifl O6 oV"D0#6$$$$4 la3878:8@8C8I8M8S8V8\8 $$If]a$ $H$If]Ha$ $$Ifa$ $ $If] a$$If \8]8 kdk$$Ifl O6 oV"D0#6$$$$4 la]8s8v8|8888888 $$If]a$ $H$If]Ha$ $$Ifa$ $ $If] a$$If 88 kdQl$$Ifl O6 oV"D0#6$$$$4 la8888888888 $$If]a$ $H$If]Ha$ $$Ifa$ $ $If] a$$If 88 kdm$$Ifl O6 oV"D0#6$$$$4 la88;; ==g=h=r=s= AA*APARAdAAAAB $$Ifa$$If 0^`0>APARABBI`IbIJ J6JJNQRR8S5W[f[h[V\] ``````a aXa\acddXekkkmm|mnrtttvvPvQvvvvv w wDwEwwwwwxx;xO0#6$$$$4 lad ddddd$d)d.d3d $V$If]Va$ $s$If]sa$$If 3d4d kda$$Ifl s &i@(#(PcC>O0#6$$$$4 la4d;dBdFdKdPdUdZd_ddd $V$If]Va$ $s$If]sa$$If dded kd$$Ifl s &i@(#(PcC>O0#6$$$$4 laedmdtdxd}dddddd $V$If]Va$ $s$If]sa$$If dd kd˞$$Ifl s &i@(#(PcC>O0#6$$$$4 ladddddddddd $V$If]Va$ $s$If]sa$$If dd kd$$Ifl s &i@(#(PcC>O0#6$$$$4 ladXe[f]h^hhhkkkkklFlrllm $$Ifa$$Ifmmm$Ifkd5$$Ifl4r .#`z 2%%%%%0#64 laf4p2%%%%%mm"m0m@mNm^mlm|m~mmmmmmmmmm $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$Ff$Ifmm kde$$Ifl  .#z0#6$$$$4 lammmmmnn n nn $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If nn kd$$Ifl  .#z0#6$$$$4 lan(n+n1n4n:n=nCnFnLn $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If LnMn kdݩ$$Ifl  .#z0#6$$$$4 laMnYn\nbnenknnntnwn}n $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If }n~n kd$$Ifl  .#z0#6$$$$4 la~nnnnnnnnnn $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If nn kdG$$Ifl  .#z0#6$$$$4 lannrrrr"r#rttttt(ujuuuv $$Ifa$$Ifvvv$Ifkd|$$Ifl4r u$` 2%%%%%0m%64 laf4p2%%%%%vv#v*v2v9vAvHvPvQvivlvrvuv{v~vvvv $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$IfFf $$Ifa$vv kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 lavvvvvvvvvv $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If vv kdԴ$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 lavvvvvvvww w $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If w w kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 la w w#w)w,w2w5w;w>wDw $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If DwEw kdH$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 laEw^wawgwjwpwswyw|ww $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If ww kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 lawwwwwwwwww $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If ww kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 lawwwwwwwwwx $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If xx kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 laxxx x#x)x,x2x5x;x $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If ;xyDyGyMyPyVy $$If]a$ $ $If] a$$If VyWy kd$$Ifl g  u\ $0m%6$$$$4 laWyXy||||n~p~~N( $$Ifa$$If()Z$IfkdR$$Iflrdl,"$  20#64 lap2Z^bfjk>8$Ifkd$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$Ԁ>8$Ifkd$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$Ԁ؀܀>8$Ifkdo$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$ !M>8$IfkdQ$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$MQUY]^>8$Ifkd3$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$><kd$$Iflrdl,"$ 0#64 la $$If]a$ $@$If]@a$FԆ $$Ifa$$If Ԇֆkd$$Ifl4r| ,#` 20$%64 laf4p2ֆ؆"2@PR‡·Ї $$If]a$FfM $$Ifa$$IfЇ҇ kd $$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 la҇އ  $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kdE$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 la=CIMSY_ci $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If ij kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laj $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laƈʈψӈو݈ $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 la  $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kd-$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laDHMQVZ_ch $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If hi kdg$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 lai{~ $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laÉȉˉЉ $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If Љщ kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laщ׉݉ $s$If]sa$ $e$If]ea$ $$If]a$$If  kd$$Ifl |c , #0$%6$$$$4 laKLMNcdڐ:Hʑڑ $$Ifa$$Ifڑܑޑ$IfkdO$$Ifl4r .N#`z,,, 2064 laf4p2ޑ #+,:=CFLPVY_ $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$IfFf $$Ifa$_` kdu$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 la`gjpsy| $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If  kd$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 la $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If  kd$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 la˒ΒԒגݒ $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If  kd$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 la  $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If  kdI$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 la"%+.47=@F $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If FG kd~$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 laGORX[adjms $V$If]Va$ $ $If] a$$If st kd$$Ifl  .N#zXXBXX06$$$$4 latu;<DE7de 67ا٧{|}~̬ͬά @ pX @@@J"#_`  EFijabmϸ $$Ifa$$IfϮЮ` FiabmиT`Ժպ<I˿34  #$gH`bdf;͵͵͵͵ h(CJ] j-h(CJ h(5CJh(OJQJ h(CJh(5CJ\h(CJOJQJ\h( h(56 h(5 j-h(5DϸиWQD; $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF|N   t0    4 la5p!'|vi` $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF|N  t0    4 la5'(JMS|vi` $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$IflF|N  t0    4 la5STZ^_|vi` $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$Ifkd($$IflF|N  t0    4 la5_`aԺպֺ|zzzzxzrriii $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF|N  t0    4 la5 (3-$Ifkdr$$Ifl\TjTp (04 lalp( $$Ifa$(+01:IKPNH? $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$PQZcehlf]L? $H$If]Ha$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalhirz}lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$IfkdJ$$Ifl\TjTp04 lallf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lallf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalû˻λԻlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalԻջ޻lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd|$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal  lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal'*/lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdb$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal/0:DGMlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalMNX]_dlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$Ifl\TjTp04 laldeovy~lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal~lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lallf]L? $H$If]Ha$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalǼɼμlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalμϼټlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$Ifl\TjTp04 lallf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Ifl\TjTp04 lal lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal'36;lf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal;<BCGHlf]L? $@$If]@a$$`$If]`^a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\TjTp04 lalHIJ˿34uljjjjhjbb$IfkdZ$$Ifl\TjTp04 lal vpc $$If]a$$Ifkd1$$Iflj0 !H 04 lalp $$If]a$$Iflkd$$Ifl0 !H04 lal $$If]a$$Iflkd$$Ifl0 !H04 lal  $$If]a$$IflkdA$$Ifl0 !H04 lal  # $$If]a$$Iflkd$$Ifl0 !H04 lal#$ghHIV6Hh $$Ifa$$Iflkd{$$Ifl0 !H04 lal <6)) $h$If]ha$$Ifkd$$Ifl\@ H!@  (0!4 lalp(_Y$Ifkd4$$Ifl\@ H!@ 0!4 lal $h$If]ha$"6J`lfYYY $h$If]ha$$Ifkd$$Ifl\@ H!@ 0!4 lal`bj|lfYYY $h$If]ha$$Ifkd$$Ifl\@ H!@ 0!4 lallfYYY $h$If]ha$$Ifkde$$Ifl\@ H!@ 0!4 lalpqZ[ljjhjhjffffkd $$Ifl\@ H!@ 0!4 lal pq_`Z:_67XY~nU>(=>EZ[\+WXrsſſָֿֿֿ h(\ h(CJ\ h(CJ h(5CJh(56\] h(5h(6CJ] h(CJ]h(5CJ]h( h(CJ]D[&_`a{ $$Ifa$$If WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl4FH#`Hp 0#    4 lalf4p$Ifkd $$Ifl4rH# H888 20#4 lalf4p2"%+,2kd# $$IflrH#H8880#4 lal $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$,jmsv| $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$If|}YSF9F $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$Ifkd $$IflrH#H8880#4 lalKMLF9 $h$If]ha$$Ifkd $$IflrH#H8880#4 lal $$If]a$MRTYZ2kdl $$IflrH#H8880#4 lal $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$Z $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$IfYSF9F $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$Ifkd/$$IflrH#H8880#4 lalKMLF9 $h$If]ha$$Ifkd$$IflrH#H8880#4 lal $$If]a$MRTYZ[20kd$$IflrH#H8880#4 lal $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$[QR9:_` $$Ifa$'.6WNNNNN $$Ifa$kdx$$Ifl4F`  0    4 lalf4p67G$Ifkd$$Ifl4r  F 204 lalf4p2GJPRXYlC=$Ifkd$$Iflr F04 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$loux~C=$Ifkd$$Iflr F04 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$mCAAkd$$Iflr F04 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$mnybkdg$$Ifl40` 04 lalf4p $$Ifa$$If WQD7 $$If]a$ $&$If]&a$$IfkdD$$Ifl4F, ~ ~ 0    4 lalf4pyl_ $$If]a$ $&$If]&a$$Ifkd9$$IflF,~ ~ 0    4 lal  yl_ $$If]a$ $&$If]&a$$Ifkd$$IflF,~ ~ 0    4 lalUV:;<=>J}}}}}}}}}}w$Ifkd$$IflF,~ ~ 0    4 lal  $$Ifa$71(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Ifl4\m[,"`c  V (064 lalf4p(  $$If]a$ $X$If]Xa$ $h$If]ha$ $.$If].a$$IfFf $$Ifa$ (*2,# $$Ifa$$IfkdX$$Ifl֞mT [,"1064 lal*-/57= $$If]a$ $X$If]Xa$ $h$If]ha$ $4$If]4a$=>EG2,# $$Ifa$$Ifkdf$$Ifl֞mT [,"1064 lalGMORTZ $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$ $.$If].a$Z[\+,720000kdt $$Ifl֞mT [,"1064 lal7rszd[[ $$Ifa$kd!$$Ifl40 `  04 lalf4p $$Ifa$$IfsT#789e !/89bcK01dh(56\]jh(0JUh(6CJ] h(\ h(CJ\ h(5\ h(CJ] h(5h(56CJ\] h(CJh( h(5CJh(5CJ\>WQD7 $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd_"$$Ifl4F    0    4 lalf4pyl_ $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkdb#$$IflF  0    4 lalyl_ $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$$IflF  0    4 lalST[kq}}}}}}xriii $$Ifa$$If$a$kd$$$IflF  0    4 lal .kd{%$$Ifl4\D,"`V x p (064 lalf4p( $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$Ffi( $$Ifa$$If2,# $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$Ifl֞2 D,"Dl `064 lal  $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$#%2,# $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$Ifl֞2 D,"Dl `064 lal%+-027 $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$789ef$20.00kd,$$Ifl֞2 D,"Dl `064 lal$%/0]^ !/a $$Ifa$$If$a$ ^`^3-$Ifkd-$$Ifl\,"$ ( (04 lalp( $$Ifa$ E?$Ifkd.$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lal $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $r$If]ra$ ),28_YL? $$If]a$ $r$If]ra$$Ifkd/$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lal $$If]a$89UW]blfYL? $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $r$If]ra$$Ifkd0$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lalbcrtzlfYL? $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $r$If]ra$$IfkdZ1$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lallfYL? $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $r$If]ra$$Ifkd#2$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lalJKWljjjjje\\\ $$Ifa$$a$kd2$$Ifl\,"$ (04 lal  $$Ifa$kd3$$Ifl4rbx#`b&"` 204 lalf4p2%'-0 $ $If] a$ $$If]a$ $V$If]Va$$IfFf6 $$Ifa$01J $Ifkdl9$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lalJLRTZ\ad $ $If] a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $V$If]Va$de{ $Ifkd:$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lalde FGHvw:;ef"#U   +     L M       89:IjkP j-h(CJh(5OJQJh(OJQJh(CJOJQJh(56\]h(6CJ] h(5CJ h(5 h(CJ] h(CJh(D{} $ $If] a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $V$If]Va$ $Ifkd;$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lal $ $If] a$ $$Ifa$ $V$If]Va$ $Ifkd<$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lal $ $If] a$ $ $If] a$ $$Ifa$ $V$If]Va$ $Ifkd=$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lal  $ $If] a$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $V$If]Va$  kd>$$Iflִb x#b880    4 lal&8>F $$Ifa$$If$a$ FGH$Ifkd?$$Ifl4rT#`Tp` 20#4 lalf4p2HOW^fmuvw $H$If]Ha$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$$IfFfC $$Ifa$ $IfkdE$$IflִT #T88880#    4 lal $$Ifa$ $H$If]Ha$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$ $IfkdF$$IflִT #T88880#    4 lal $$Ifa$ $H$If]Ha$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$  $IfkdG$$IflִT #T88880#    4 lal "(*028: $$Ifa$ $H$If]Ha$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$:;P $IfkdH$$IflִT #T88880#    4 lalPRY[^`ce $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$efu $IfkdI$$IflִT #T88880#    4 laluw} $$Ifa$ $H$If]Ha$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$" ]kdJ$$IflִT #T88880#    4 lal"#UVFG       + I v   $$Ifa$$If$a$    <6) $@$If]@a$$IfkdK$$Ifl\N Ht"N p (04 lalp(    = @ F L VPC $@$If]@a$$IfkdL$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$L M     lfYPC $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$IfkdM$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal      lfYPC $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$IfkdYN$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal    1ljhjjhhjbY $$Ifa$$Ifkd"O$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal 189:AIlf$IfkdO$$Ifl40 `  04 lalf4p $$Ifa$IJ\^bWQHH $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$Ifl4F H  b 0    4 lalf4pbctvzypp $$Ifa$$IfkdQ$$IflF H b0    4 lalz{ypp $$Ifa$$IfkdxR$$IflF H b0    4 lalypp $$Ifa$$Ifkd%S$$IflF H b0    4 lalypp $$Ifa$$IfkdS$$IflF H b0    4 lalOP]}}}{{}ull $$Ifa$$IfkdT$$IflF H b0    4 lal P01KL`ST./hi9:_ ` :!$y$z$$$&)*5 6 6 6g6کԩԩԩԩ뛖~h(6CJ]h(56] h(6] h(\ h(\] h(CJ] h(5h(56CJ\] h(5\h(56\] j-h(CJ h(CJ h(5CJh(CJOJQJh(h(5OJQJh(OJQJ1uoff $$Ifa$$Ifkd,U$$Ifl40 P`  04 lalf4pWQHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd V$$Ifl4F P   0    4 lalf4p!'ypp $$Ifa$$Ifkd W$$IflF P 0    4 lal'(:<Bypp $$Ifa$$IfkdW$$IflF P 0    4 lalBCWY_ypp $$Ifa$$IfkdfX$$IflF P 0    4 lal_`a9:lm~}}}}}}}}}{{v$a$kdY$$IflF P 0    4 lal #ST-kdY$$Ifl\N Ht"N p (04 lalp( $$Ifa$$IfTPkdZ$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$If !#).lfYPP $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$Ifkd[$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal./[]chlfYPP $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$Ifkd|\$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lalhi9::!;!$($y$z$ljjhjhjjhhc$a$kdE]$$Ifl\N Ht"N p04 lal z$$$$$$$$$ $$Ifa$$If$$@%C%<6) $@$If]@a$$Ifkd^$$Ifl\ ,"  (04 lalp(C%H%M%N%%%%%c]P $@$If]@a$$Ifkd8_$$Ifl\ ," 04 lal $$Ifa$%% & &&&lfYPP $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$Ifkd`$$Ifl\ ," 04 lal&&&))**--*/004ljjhhjjjjjjjkd`$$Ifl\ ," 04 lal 44555 6 6 6686g6 $$Ifa$$If$a$ g6h6}66<6) $V$If]Va$$Ifkda$$Ifl\~ 4!~ 8~  (0!4 lalp(g6h666666:::AA_NgNcXX[8\`\a\\&_``Sp]ppppq;q}B}E}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdM$$Ifl\!F04 lalE}F}c}g}k}n}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 laln}o}}}}}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdӝ$$Ifl\!F04 lal}}}}}}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal}}}}}}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdY$$Ifl\!F04 lal}}}~~ ~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal ~ ~#~(~,~/~lf]S] $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdߠ$$Ifl\!F04 lal/~0~Q~U~X~[~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal[~\~~~~~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$Ifl\!F04 lal~~~~~~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Ifl\!F04 lal~~~~~~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal~~~~~~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal~~ lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdq$$Ifl\!F04 lal@HLOlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd4$$Ifl\!F04 lalOPimqtlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 laltulf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd}$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd@$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdƪ$$Ifl\!F04 lal,036lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal67U]`clf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdL$$Ifl\!F04 lalcdlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdҭ$$Ifl\!F04 lalրڀހlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdX$$Ifl\!F04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal6>BElf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdް$$Ifl\!F04 lalEF_cfilf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!F04 lalijlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$Ifl\!F04 lallf]SI  $If  $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$Ifl\!F04 lalhւ2lbXVVVVVP$If ^` L^`Lkd$$Ifl\!F04 lal 2:E]^1kd$$Ifl4\xd!x (%%%%0!4 lalp(%%%% $$Ifa$^~Ikdڵ$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal $If $If $$Ifa$$If΄ӄׄڄb\SI $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal $Ifڄۄlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal'+/2lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal23RW[^lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal^_~lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdl$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal܅lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal#(,/lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdx$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal/0X`dglf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd;$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalghz}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalʆΆ҆Նlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdG$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalՆֆ߆lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal(-14lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal45NSVYlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdS$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalYZdlpslf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalstlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalڇ߇lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd"$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal',/2lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal23TY\_lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal_`}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal߈lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalBGJMlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdw$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalMN[_cflf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalfgoptwlf]SI  $If  $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lalwx?ߋlbXXVTVV ^` L^`Lkd$$Ifl\xd!x0!4 lal  8 $$Ifa$$If89W\<6- $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ! (%%%%04 lalp(%%%%\`cdXRI $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal $If $Iflf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$Ifl\ !04 lalŒƌɌˌlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$Ifl\ !04 lalˌ̌lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal  !$'lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd|$$Ifl\ !04 lal'(LQTWlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd?$$Ifl\ !04 lalWXw|lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalčǍʍlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalʍˍlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdK$$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal).14lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal45LQTWlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalWXqvy|lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdW$$Ifl\ !04 lal|}lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalĎlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalĎŎ܎lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Ifl\ !04 lal+036lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$Ifl\ !04 lal67LQTWlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalWXlqtwlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalwxlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl\ !04 lalʏΏяlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$Ifl\ !04 lalяҏlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal047:lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd{$$Ifl\ !04 lal:;OTX[lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd>$$Ifl\ !04 lal[\mrvylf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalyzlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalƐɐ̐lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdJ$$Ifl\ !04 lal̐͐lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal+48;lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal;<bkorlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$IfkdV$$Ifl\ !04 lalrslf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalבܑlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdb$$Ifl\ !04 lal lf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Ifl\ !04 lal !8=ADlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalDEhptwlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalwxlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$Ifl\ !04 lallf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$Ifl\ !04 lalÒƒlf]SI $If $If $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ !04 lalƒǒĔŔLMeflbXVVVVTV ^` L^`Lkd$$Ifl\ !04 lal f()%Caz{ $If  $If d$If$IfFf $$Ifa$$If<6$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :z!8F0!4 lal d$If d$If $If  $IfF@6,  $If d$If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :z!8F0!4 lalġǡʡˡ2kd$$Iflֈ :z!8F0!4 lal d$If $Ifˡѡӡաס١ۡ $If  $If d$If$IfۡܡF@7777 $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :z!8F0!4 lal{ܡܧ,ҮӮԮ8?%õno@\c6b0RY<fMNȰנ h(6]h(5CJ\ h(5CJ jh(5CJ h(5CJ h(5jh(0JUh(h(6CJ] h(CJ h(6CJh(5CJ\ h(CJ; ,-=;;;;kdo$$Iflֈ :z!8F0!4 lal $$Ifa$-jkѮҮӮ $$Ifa$$If <6,, r$If$IfkdP$$Ifl\ !  (%%%%0!4 lalp(%%%%/257b\RR r$If$Ifkdl$$Ifl\ ! 0!4 lal $If78dzȳ$%1ljjjjjjjjjjjkd!$$Ifl\ ! 0!4 lal µõεӵصܵ $If $If $If $IfFf9 $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd9$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal 2kd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If"'+/4 $If $If $If $If$If45EINF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalNRV[\2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If\ptx} $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kdX$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $IfжԶٶ޶ $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd+$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal 2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If48=AFJ $If $If $If $If$IfJKchmF@6, $If $If$Ifkd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalmquz{2kd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If{ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkdw $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalķɷͷη2kdJ $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifη۷߷ $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal %&2kd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If&=AGKOS $If $If $If $If$IfSTlpuF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 laluy}2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$IføȸF@6, $If $If$Ifkdi$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalȸ͸Ҹ׸ظ2kd<$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifظ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal$)./2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If/=BFKOT $If $If $If $If$IfTUkptF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalty~2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd[$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalĹɹʹ2kd.$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifʹܹ $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If27<@DI $If $If $If $If$IfIJ\`eF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalejotu2kdz$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifu $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdM$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalƺǺ2kd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $IfǺݺ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal!&'2kd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If'9>CHMR $If $If $If $If$IfRSmrwF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalw{2kdl$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$IfƻF@6, $If $If$Ifkd?$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalƻʻλӻԻ2kd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $IfԻ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd $$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal!&'2kd!$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If'16:?DI $If $If $If $If$IfIJX]aF@6, $If $If$Ifkd"$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalafkpq2kd^#$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifq} $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd1$$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalżƼ2kd%$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $IfƼڼ޼ $If $If $If $If$If novFDDD>$Ifkd%$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalv~ $If $If $If $If$IfFf ( $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ ŽF@6, $If $If$Ifkd *$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalŽɽνҽӽ2kd*$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifӽ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd+$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal"&+,2kd,$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If,;@DINS $If $If $If $If$IfST\afF@6, $If $If$IfkdY-$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalfkpuv2kd,.$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifv $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd.$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalþȾɾ2kd/$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifɾ߾ $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd0$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal 2kdx1$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If(-15:? $If $If $If $If$If?@LQVF@6, $If $If$IfkdK2$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalV[`ef2kd3$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Iffrw| $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd3$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kd4$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If˿ϿԿٿ޿ $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd5$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal 2kdj6$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If#(-16 $If $If $If $If$If67OSXF@6, $If $If$Ifkd=7$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalX]bgh2kd8$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifh $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd8$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kd9$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd:$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kd\;$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If$(,059 $If $If $If $If$If9:SX]F@6, $If $If$Ifkd/<$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal]aejk2kd=$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifk $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd=$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kd>$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd{?$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $%2kdN@$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If%;@DHMQ $If $If $If $If$IfQRaejF@6, $If $If$Ifkd!A$$Iflֈ U.! G04 laljnrwx2kdA$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $Ifx $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdB$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal2kdC$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If$If  F@6, $If $If$IfkdmD$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal 2kd@E$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If).26;? $If $If $If $If$If?@HMPF@6, $If $If$IfkdF$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lalPSV[\20kdF$$Iflֈ U.! G04 lal $If $If56=ENSYab} $If $If $IfFfI $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$$If2,$IfkdK$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If $IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdK$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdL$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$If5:?F@6, $If $If$IfkdM$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal?DINO(kdhN$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $IfO`ejosx $If $If $If $If $If$IfxyF@6, $If $If$Ifkd;O$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdP$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdP$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdQ$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If#) $If $If $If $If $If$If)*DJOF@6, $If $If$IfkdR$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lalOTY_`(kdZS$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If`hmrw| $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd-T$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdU$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdU$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdV$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If  % $If $If $If $If $If$If%&/49F@6, $If $If$IfkdyW$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal9=AFG(kdLX$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $IfGTZ_dio $If $If $If $If $If$IfopF@6, $If $If$IfkdY$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdY$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdZ$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kd[$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If !& $If $If $If $If $If$If&'<AEF@6, $If $If$Ifkdk\$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lalEJNST(kd>]$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $IfThnsx} $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd^$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kd^$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If $If $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkd_$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal (kd`$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If05:?DH $If $If $If $If $If$IfHIbgkF@6, $If $If$Ifkd]a$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lalkpuyz(kd0b$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $Ifz $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkdc$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(kdc$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$If F@6, $If $If$Ifkdd$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal %*/0(kd|e$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal $If $If $If08=BGLQ $If $If $If $If $If$IfQRFDDDDD>$IfkdOf$$Iflֈ U.! .04 lal(-3;<SY^bfk  $If $If $If $If $If$IfFfh $  $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ klF@6, $If $If$Ifkdj$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kd^k$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd1l$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdm$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If   $If $If $If $If $If$If*/3F@6, $If $If$Ifkdm$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal38=AB(kdn$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $IfBPTX]bg  $If $If $If $If $If$IfghF@6, $If $If$Ifkd}o$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdPp$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd#q$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdq$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If!%)-  $If $If $If $If $If$If-.KPTF@6, $If $If$Ifkdr$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalTZ^bc(kds$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $Ifcz  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkdot$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdBu$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkdv$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal#'((kdv$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If(BGKPTX  $If $If $If $If $If$IfXYrx}F@6, $If $If$Ifkdw$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal}(kdx$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkday$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kd4z$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If   $If $If $If $If $If$If:@EF@6, $If $If$Ifkd{$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalEINRS(kd{$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $IfSjotx}  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd|$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kd}$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdS~$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  (kd&$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If !&+049  $If $If $If $If $If$If9:QUZF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalZ_dij(kd̀$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $Ifj{  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdr$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$IfkdE$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If!&+1  $If $If $If $If $If$If12EKPF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalPTX]^(kd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If^w{  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd7$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal (kd $$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If%)-27  $If $If $If $If $If$If78OSXF@6, $If $If$Ifkd݉$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalX]bfg(kd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $Ifg}  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal(kdV$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If  $If $If $If $If $If$IfF@6, $If $If$Ifkd)$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal (kd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $If!%*.3  $If $If $If $If $If$If34OSYF@6, $If $If$Ifkdώ$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalY]aef(kd$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lal  $If $If $Iffnsx}  $If $If $If $If $If$If!MFDDDDBBkdu$$Iflֈ U.! .0!4 lalMN]t    $If  $If  $IfFf $$Ifa$$If/0_`\]dYZ[}~*+QR»¢¨jh(0J5CJU h(5CJ h(\ h(CJh(5CJ\ jh(5CJ h(CJ\h(h(6CJ] h(CJh(5CJ\h(56CJ\] h(5CJ h(CJ jh(CJ5#F@6,  $If   $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ 4t"8TT0t"4 lal#'+/02kd$$Iflֈ 4t"8TT0t"4 lal   $If  $If0KNRV[_  $If  $If   $If$If_`tvzF@6,  $If   $If$Ifkd$$Iflֈ 4t"8TT0t"4 lalz~20kdn$$Iflֈ 4t"8TT0t"4 lal   $If  $IfB .LjFfə $$Ifa$$If h^h`F@7777 $$Ifa$$Ifkdƛ$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal=7$Ifkd$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$=7$Ifkd$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$=7$Ifkdi$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$=7$IfkdJ$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$#(-278=kd+$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$8KPTX\` $$Ifa$$If`apxF@7777 $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal=7$Ifkd$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$(=;;;kd΢$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~ 04 lal $$Ifa$()deq$ABZ[kXnkdK$$Ifl46$$  0$4 laf4p  ,$If]FfD$ ,$Ifa$ ,$If koquz}$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$ ,h$If]ha$}~D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la"'*$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$*+?BD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdܫ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laBEJOQ$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$QRmpD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$IfkdЬ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 lapsx}$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdĭ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$#$Db ^`$%GHij >?gh  9:hiLMlmDEpq56_`  h(h(5CJ\ h(CJ^D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la #$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$#$04D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la47<AD$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$DE`D1 , $If] kd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la`blVV@V$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifnkd$$Ifl46$$  0$4 laf4p D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd=$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$ :@D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd?$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la@FPZ^$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$^`xD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd3$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd'$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la!$$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$%48D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la8;?DG$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$GHUYD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laY\afi$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$ijw{D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la{~$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd߼$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdӽ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la  $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$ *.D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$IfkdǾ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la.16;>$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$>?VYD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laY[`eg$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$ghz~D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la~$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$DB@@Bkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la4SZwxknkd%$$Ifl46$$  0$4 laf4p Ff$ ,$Ifa$ ,$If $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$ ,h$If]ha$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$  &*D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la*-169$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$9:TXD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laX[`eh$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$hivyD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 lay{$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdp$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd^$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$'8D55 ,$IfkdL$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la8<?DIL$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$ d,h$If]ha$LM[^D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd:$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la^adil$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$lmD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd.$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd $$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$  D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$25D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la58=BD$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$DE\`D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la`chmp$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$pqD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdz$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$#'D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkdh$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la')-25$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$56LPD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$IfkdV$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laPSW\_$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$_`osD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$IfkdD$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 lasv{$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd2$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd $$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$  %(D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la(+057$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$ 78no*+NOUcd  P  fh;<?@Aop%&?Ak_ RTN h(5\ h(CJ\ h(\ h(5 h(5CJh(h(5CJ\ h(CJQ78Z^D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la^afkn$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$noD5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la $ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la#(*$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$*+:>D5$ ,h$If]ha$ ,$Ifkd~$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 la>AFKN$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$NOUVD>($ ,h$If]ha$$Ifkdl$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laV[\]b$ ,$If]a$$ ,$If]a$$ , $If] a$bcdno  O DB@@@B@kdZ$$Iflֈ :&lJ6$ F0$4 laO P \       6L$ $Ifa$ $If  kdH$$IfTlr o!k 2) 2064 lap2T|p]J7$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $Ifvkd$$IfTl4o!"  064 laf4p T  $If><0 $IfkdR$$IfTlrim,"x  RM064 laT$ $If]a$>HR\f$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$fh~OC0$ $If]a$ $Ifkd=$$IfTlrim,"x  RM064 laT$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$OC0$ $If]a$ $Ifkd($$IfTlrim,"x  RM064 laT$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$O? $If]kd$$IfTlrim,"x  RM064 laT |iVC$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $Ifvkd$$IfTl4o!"  064 laf4p T'<0 $Ifkd$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT$ $If]a$',16;$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$;<@O? $If]kd$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT@A[`ej|iVC$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $Ifvkdw$$IfTl4o!"  064 laf4p Tjop<0 $Ifkd$$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT$ $If]a$$ $If]a$$ H$If]Ha$$ H$If]Ha$$ $If]a$OC0$ $If]a$ $Ifkd $$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$O? $If]kd$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT|iVC$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $Ifvkd$$IfTl4o!"  064 laf4p T<0 $Ifkd$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT$ $If]a$ %$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$%&/3OC0$ $If]a$ $Ifkdi$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laT37;?$ $If]a$$ F$If]Fa$$ $If]a$?@Akl!"rsOHFFFFFF kdO$$IfTlr o!k 2)064 laTs&^_dp6N$ $Ifa$$ r$Ifa$ $If  :. $Ifkd5$$Ifl\2 1,"  (064 lap(2kd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 la$ *$If]*a$$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$ $ *$If]*a$$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$ $If 4>Hk_L9$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$ $Ifkdd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 laHRTXL9$ $If]a$ $IfkdA$$Ifl\2 1," 064 la$ *$If]*a$E9 $Ifkd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 la$ *$If]*a$$ E$If]Ea$2kd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 la$ *$If]*a$$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$$ *$If]*a$$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$ $If k_L9$ E$If]Ea$$ $If]a$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 laNO"""XQOOMOO kd$$Ifl\2 1," 064 la$ *$If]*a$N"""$$$$$$X%Z%%-..//001122334 5566777<<??@:A1H1R1\1f1XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd $$Iflr,"}064 laf1h111111XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kds $$Iflr,"}064 la111XN $IfkdJ $$Iflr,"}064 la11112 22}}}s $If \$If $If`mkd!$$Ifl4,"  064 laf4p 2242>2H2R2\2XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 la\2^2|22222XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 la222XN $Ifkds$$Iflr,"}064 la2222223}}}s $If \$If $If`mkdJ$$Ifl4,"  064 laf4p 33"3,363@3J3XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 laJ3L3j3t3~333XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 la333XN $Ifkd$$Iflr,"}064 la33444$4.4}}}s $If \$If $If`mkds$$Ifl4,"  064 laf4p .404N4X4b4l4v4XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 lav4x444444XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 la44 5XN $Ifkd$$Iflr,"}064 la 555(525<5F5}}}s $If \$If $If`mkd$$Ifl4,"  064 laf4p F5H5f5p5z555XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd@$$Iflr,"}064 la5555555XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd$$Iflr,"}064 la556XN $Ifkd$$Iflr,"}064 la66*626:6D6N6}}}s $If \$If $If`mkd$$Ifl4,"  064 laf4p N6P6n6v6~666XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kdi$$Iflr,"}064 la6666666XNDDD: $If \$If $If`kd@$$Iflr,"}064 la667777<<??XVVTVVVRVkd$$Iflr,"}064 la ??@@AAA(A:A $$Ifa$ $ $Ifa$$If ,l !:A4 $If $If $If$Ifkd$$Iflr:"064 la8BNBPBxBBBNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd $$Iflr:"064 la $IfBBBBBDkdp!$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfBBCC"C2CHCwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd9"$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p HCJCrCCCCXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd"$$Iflr:"064 laCCCCCDNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd#$$Iflr:"064 la $IfDD,D.DRDDkdo$$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfRDTDpDDDDDwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd8%$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p DDDDEEXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd%$$Iflr:"064 laE(E*EREbErENH>4 $If $If$Ifkd&$$Iflr:"064 la $IfrEEEEEDkdn'$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfEEE FF.FDFwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd7($$Ifl4"  064 laf4p DFFFnF~FFFXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd($$Iflr:"064 laFFFFFGNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd)$$Iflr:"064 la $IfGG(G*GlGDkdm*$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfF*GnGG@HHHH:IIJ JPJJ$KKKK*LL MM:MMNNNNOOOO"PPPfQ RZZx\z\\\d]f]]],^-^j^k^^^^bCcxdzd e e6eeee?f@ffff!jQjμӴh(6\]h( h(CJ\ h(5CJ h(5 h(\ h(CJ\h(6CJ\] h(CJ\ h(5CJh(CJ\]GlGnGGGGGGwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd6+$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p GGGHH*HXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd+$$Iflr:"064 la*H@HBHjHzHHNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd,$$Iflr:"064 la $IfHHHHHDkdl-$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfHHHII$I:Iwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd5.$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p :I4 $If $If $If$Ifkd.$$Iflr:"064 laIIIIIINH>4 $If $If$Ifkd/$$Iflr:"064 la $IfIJJ JNJDkdk0$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfNJPJlJ|JJJJwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd41$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p JJJJJKXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd1$$Iflr:"064 laK$K&KNK^KnKNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd2$$Iflr:"064 la $IfnK~KKKKDkdj3$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfKKKKLL*Lwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd34$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p *L,LTLdLtLLXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd4$$Iflr:"064 laLLLLLLNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd5$$Iflr:"064 la $IfLL MM8MDkdi6$$Iflr:"064 la $If $If8M:MVMfMvMMMwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd27$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p MMMMMMXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd7$$Iflr:"064 laMNN4 $If $If$Ifkd8$$Iflr:"064 la $If\NlNNNNDkdh9$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfNNNNNNOwmc $If $If $If $If$Ifmkd1:$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p OODOTOdOvOXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd:$$Iflr:"064 lavOOOOOONH>4 $If $If$Ifkd;$$Iflr:"064 la $IfOOOO PDkdg<$$Iflr:"064 la $If $If P"P>PNP^PnPPuka $If $If $If $If$Ifokd0=$$Ifl4"  064 laf4p PPPPPPXRH>4 $If $If $If$Ifkd=$$Iflr:"064 laPPPQ.Q>QNH>4 $If $If$Ifkd>$$Iflr:"064 la $If>QNQdQfQ RQVRVD=;9 kdj?$$Iflr:"064 la $If $IfRVZZZZZZ [[,[&\B\x\$ $Ifa$ $If  x\z\~\\:.. $Ifkd3@$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z  (064 lap(\\\\\]>]d]LkduA$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 la $If$ $If]a$d]f]j]]]]k__L_$ $If]a$ $IfkdBB$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 la]]]^^,^k__L_$ $If]a$ $IfkdC$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 la,^-^/^C^V^j^k__L_$ $If]a$ $IfkdC$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 laj^k^v^^^^k__L_$ $If]a$ $IfkdD$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 la^^^bbbBcCcVcdckdbbddb\S $$Ifa$$If kdvE$$Ifl\ %,"Z Z Z 064 la dcmcyccd&dBd`dxd $$Ifa$xdzdddd e5////$IfkdQF$$Ifl4\ 3(," p (064 laf4p( e e6e8e:eezeee:44&P$If^`P$IfkdRH$$Ifl\ 3(," p (064 lap(eee ff.f?fekdI$$Ifl\ 3(," p064 la$If?f@fVfgfxffkeeee$IfkdQJ$$Ifl\ 3(," p064 lafffff j!jQjRj m mmkigieiieeiikdK$$Ifl\ 3(," p064 la Qj m6nVnXnnnnnno o,oRoTo`oooooooooopp ppp#p'p(poHoRo$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$$ q$If]qa$RoTo`ohoXD1$ }$If]}a$ ,$If`kdP$$IflrN r8 4064 la hopoxoo$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$$ q$If]qa$ooooXD1$ }$If]}a$ ,$If`kdQ$$IflrN r8 4064 la oooo$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$$ q$If]qa$oooooXLL9$ q$If]qa$ $IfkdR$$IflrN r8 4064 la ooo$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$ookdlS$$Ifl4rN r8 4 2064 la f4p2ooooop$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$$ q$If]qa$$ }$If]}a$ ,$If`pp ppXD1$ }$If]}a$ ,$If`kdT$$IflrN r8 4064 la pppp$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$$ q$If]qa$pp#p$p%pXL9&$ q$If]qa$$ }$If]}a$ $IfkdU$$IflrN r8 4064 la %p&p'p$ ~$If]~a$$ Z$If]Za$'p(pkdV$$IflrN r8 4 2064 la p2(pzKA $If`kdc$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a$>zBzCzWzXzYzK;// $If ,$Ifkd[d$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a$YzZz[z $If[z\zkd2e$$Iflrh J,"n  2064 lap2\zezjzoztzyzzzAkdrf$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a$ $If`zzzzzzz $$If]a$$IfzzkdIg$$Iflrh J,"n  2064 lap2zzzzzzzzAkdh$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a$ $If`zzzzzzzzKA $If`kdRi$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a$zzzzz {{{K??? $Ifkdj$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la $$If]a${{{ $If{{kdj$$Iflrh J,"n  2064 lap2{{!{&{+{0{1{5kd2l$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`1{={A{F{K{O{P{5kdl$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`P{b{g{l{q{v{w{5kdm$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`w{{{{{{{5kdn$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`{{{{{{{5kdVo$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`{{{{{{{5kdp$$Iflrh J,"n 064 la$ $If]a$ $If`{{{{{1|2|]^ktv؀ڀ jlց؁ ABjk45„/?@pquvz{ąׅ؅ 4589=>Refz h(CJh(6\] h(5CJh( h(\h(CJH*\ h(CJ\ h(5 h(CJ\N{1|2|]^k$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$If ,l ! 4DTdtsdRRRR$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkdp$$Ifl40 ," 4 064 laf4ptvkdr$$Iflr H,"  2064 lap2vĀ΀؀$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$If؀ڀXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdxs$$Iflr H," 064 la  ,kdSt$$Iflr H," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ BLV`j$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfjlXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd.u$$Iflr H," 064 la́ց؁,kd v$$Iflr H," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$؁ $ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$If -2XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdv$$Iflr H," 064 la27<AB,kdw$$Iflr H," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$BV[`ej$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfjkXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdx$$Iflr H," 064 la,kduy$$Iflr H," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfςԂXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfkdPz$$Iflr H," 064 laԂقނ,kd+{$$Iflr H," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$If45„΄XNLLBBL -DM  ,l !kd|$$Iflr H," 064 la΄./0?@PX`hQkd|$$Ifl402 J  064 laf4p$ $Ifa$ $If  hp$ $Ifa$pqkd}$$Iflr2 x^J FF 2064 lap2qvwxyz $If ,$Ifz{kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF 2064 lap2{ $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $If`XNA4A $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $If`kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 laąɅͅKA4 $$If]a$ $If`kdʁ$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la $$If]a$ׅ҅ͅ؅>4 $If`kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$>. ,$Ifkd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $Ifkd$$Iflr2 x^J FF 2064 lap2  $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $If` %*/XNA4A $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $If`kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la/459:;K;// $If ,$IfkdȆ$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la $$If]a$;<= $If=>kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF 2064 lap2>RV[`e $$If]a$ $$If]a$ $:$If]:a$ $If`efzXNAA4 $$If]a$ $:$If]:a$ $If`kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la͉Ήډ5KDBB@D kd$$Iflr2 x^J FF064 la $$If]a$zΉډ6FGwxŠˊ̊23IJ`avw‹ыՋ֋!"ABX]^gh|}  '()*|h(CJH*\ h(CJ\ h(5H* h(5h( h(\ h(5CJ h(CJ\P567FGW_gowOkd$$Ifl4,0 ," 4 064 laf4p$ $Ifa$ $If  wxkd$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2x$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $Ifkd$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`Š̊ъVF3$ $If]a$ $If`kdݎ$$Ifl,r k," 064 laъ֊ۊ0kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`VJ7$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$  $Ifkd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$kd$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2#(-2$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`235:VF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la:?DIJ0kdÓ$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$JLQV[`$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If``acgVF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 laglrvw0kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$wy}$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`VJ:* $If] $If]  $Ifkd`$$Ifl,r k," 064 la $If] $If]kdM$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`‹ыҋӋVJ:* $If] $If] $Ifkd$$Ifl,r k," 064 laӋԋՋ $If] $If]Ջ֋kd$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2֋$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If` VF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la!"0kdכ$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$"-27<A$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`ABYZ[VJ:* $If] $If] $Ifkd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la[\] $If] $If]]^kd$$Ifl,r k,"  2064 lap2^hmrw|$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`|}VF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la0kdޟ$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`ЌՌVF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 laՌڌ0kd$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $ $If]a$$ $If]a$ $If`  VF3$ $If]a$ $If`kd{$$Ifl,r k," 064 la"'(|0.kdZ$$Ifl,r k," 064 la$ $If]a$$ $If]a$|}$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$If ,l ! đ̑ԑsdRRRR$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$IfkdG$$Ifl40 ,"  064 laf4pԑՑ)*OPےܒ./UV}~“ANŖƖʖ˖͖Ζږۖ1289;<FGQRefijlm5ۜޜߜ12Ch(h(6\] h(\ h(CJ\ h(5CJ h(5VԑՑkdU$$Iflr ,"  2064 lap2Ց$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 la$)$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$)*;@XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdԧ$$Iflr ," 064 la@EJO$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$OPqvXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$IfkdǨ$$Iflr ," 064 lav{$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ǒ̒XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 la̒ђ֒ے$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$ےܒXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 la$).$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$./AFXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Iflr ," 064 laFKPU$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$UVinXI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdy$$Iflr ," 064 lansx}$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$}~XI3$ ,l !$If]a$ ,l !$Ifkdl$$Iflr ," 064 la$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$$ ,l !$If]a$“Ó@ANXNLLLLJ ,l !kd_$$Iflr ," 064 laNŖOkd`$$Ifl40 `  064 laf4p$ $Ifa$ $If ŖƖ˖̖͖VJ;;$ $Ifa$  $Ifkdr$$IflF V` bb 06    4 lap͖ΖۖVJ;;$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$IflF V` bb 06    4 lap|paa$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$IflF V` bb06    4 la|paa$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdo$$IflF V` bb06    4 la(-1|paa$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd,$$IflF V` bb06    4 la129:;|paa$ $Ifa$  $Ifkd$$IflF V` bb06    4 la;<GLQVJ;;$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$IflF V` bb 06    4 lapQR[`e|paa$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$IflF V` bb06    4 laefjkl|paa$ $Ifa$  $Ifkdy$$IflF V` bb06    4 lalmVJ;;$ $Ifa$ $IfkdD$$IflF V` bb 06    4 lap|paa$ $Ifa$ $IfkdL$$IflF V` bb06    4 la56C|ussuuugX$ $Ifa$ $If kd $$IflF V` bb06    4 la qeVV$ $Ifa$ $IfkdԼ$$Ifl40  x 064 laf4pܜݜޜSG88$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4pޜߜSG88$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4p ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd2$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4',1ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf412EFGym^^$ $Ifa$  $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4CDEGHMNXYijz{Ý̝͝ܝޝߝ!"=>՞žݞڞȞɞ&01Ϣڢۢ;<[\xyh(CJH*\ h(CJ\ h(5CJh( h(5 h(CJ\ h(\ h(5H*QGHNSXSG88$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4pXY_diym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ijpuzym^^$ $Ifa$ $IfkdZ$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4z{ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ym^^$ $Ifa$  $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4Ýǝ̝SG88$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdt$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4p̝͝ܝݝޝym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ޝߝSG88$ $Ifa$ $IfkdS$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4p!ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkda$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4!"38=ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4=>UVWym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4WXfkpSG88$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d   06    4 laf4ppqym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ÞȞym^^$ $Ifa$ $IfkdL$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4Ȟɞߞym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ym^^$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4ST%&'ywwwwukk\ ,l !$If ,l !kd$$Ifl4F d  06    4 laf4 '01AIQaR ,l !$Ifkdf$$Ifl40 n  064 laf4p$ ,l !$Ifa$QRotyUF44$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkdt$$Ifl4F En CC 06    4 laf4pyz{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd_$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4Тբڢ{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4ڢۢ{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf416;{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd[$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4;<QV[{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4[\nsx{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4xy{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$Ifkd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4{lZZ$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$IfkdW$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4ab{yyywyyyyyyyukd$$Ifl4F En CC06    4 laf4 "$%<OP_@WXUbc| 9:FY8ȿȿȿ囑嬈h(5CJH*h(56CJ] h(CJ\jh(0JU h(5CJ h(CJ h(CJh(5CJ\h(56CJ\]h(56\] h(6]h( h(CJ h(CJ h(\ h(55"#$12!"vw$<=#OP_u $$Ifa$$If$a$н$Ifkd$$Iflr2 ,f!  2%%%%%0!4 lap2%%%%%нӽֽؽ۽ܽLF$Ifkd4$$Iflr2 ,f! 0!4 la $@$If]@a$LF$Ifkd$$Iflr2 ,f! 0!4 la $@$If]@a$  YSFFFF $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Iflr2 ,f! 0!4 laYWUSSUM$Ifkd$$Iflr2 ,f! 0!4 la%?@W3-$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$  (%%%%0$4 lap(%%%% $$Ifa$WXhlpu $`$If]`a$$Iflkd$$Ifl4$$  %0$4 laf4p %uvlfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd@$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 lalfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 laſlfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 laſƿlfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd&$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la',16lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkdj$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la67GKPTlfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd $$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 laTUblf$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 labctx| $`$If]`a$$IflkdP$$Ifl4$$  %0$4 laf4p %lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 lalfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 lalfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd5$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 lalfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkdy$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la*/49lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la9:KPUZlfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 laZ[mqv{lfYYY $`$If]`a$$Ifkd_$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la{|  :;ljhhhhhfhh`^kd$$Ifl\ G$ 0$4 la V EFYy $$Ifa$$If & FgdG:4'' $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp (%%%%064 lap(%%%%^XKK $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 la $ $If] a$ keXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkdp$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 la !(,04keXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd#$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 la45IMQVkeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 laVWgkoskeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 lastkeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd<$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 lakeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 lakeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 lakeXXK $ $If] a$ $$If]a$$IfkdU$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 la~7Dkigiiiiiiiikd$$Ifl\ P! bbp064 la  $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R  2%%%%%0"4 lap2%%%%%  $$If]a$$Iflkd$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %:?DINYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laNOafkpuYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd3$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 lauv}YSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd1$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYS$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la#(- $$If]a$$Iflkd$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %-.@EJOTYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd&$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laTU\afkpYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 lapqYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkdz$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYS$Ifkdx$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la#$4:w,wZ!;fu$%E3(*.佶­­䶭 h(CJh(5CJ\ h(CJ\ h(\h(56CJ\] h(CJ h(5CJh(5CJ\h( h(CJ h(5CJh(56CJ]B&+05: $$If]a$$Iflkd"$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %:;BGLQVYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laVWinsx}YSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkdm$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la}~YSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYSFFFF $$If]a$$Ifkdk$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la#$34YWUWSSSSSkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la 4:RZpvwyKE$Ifkd$$IflF: %%%0    4 lap%%% $$Ifa$$Ify~ic$Ifkd$$IflF:0    4 la $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ypc $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$IflF:0    4 laypc $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF:0    4 laypc $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd@$$IflF:0    4 la,;Ndv}}}{{{ullll $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF:0    4 la vw$IfkdX $$Iflr &f"R  2%%%%%0"4 lap2%%%%% $$Ifa$$Ifnkdz $$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd` $$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la.38=BWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laBCZ_dinWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflr &f"R 0"4 lanoWQHHHH $$Ifa$$IfkdO$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laWQ$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la $$Ifa$$Ifnkd$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd5$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la 7<AFJWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laJKafkosWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 lastWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 laYZfWUUUSUUUQkd$$Iflr &f"R 0"4 la f $$Ifa$$If93* $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl4\ `;p (%%%%04 laf4p(%%%% !#(-27<$IfFfp $$Ifa$ <=?DINSF@7777 $$Ifa$$Ifkds$$Iflֈ~ H;88p04 laSXY[`ej=7$Ifkd]$$Iflֈ~ H;88p04 la $$Ifa$jnstv{=7$IfkdG$$Iflֈ~ H;88p04 la $$Ifa$=7$Ifkd1$$Iflֈ~ H;88p04 la $$Ifa$=;kd$$Iflֈ~ H;88p04 la $$Ifa$;<efu $$Ifa$$If $Ifkd$$Iflr &f"@  2%%%%%0"4 lap2%%%%% $$Ifa$$Ifnkd,$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p % %)-WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la-.9>CGKWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdw $$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laKLUZ_cgWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd!!$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laghqv{WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd!$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdu"$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQ$Ifkd#$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la  $$Ifa$$Ifnkds$$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %#(,0WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la01JOTX\WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la\]ty~WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdh&$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdf($$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQ$Ifkd)$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la"',04 $$Ifa$$Ifnkd)$$Ifl4f""  %0"4 laf4p %45NSX\`TNEEEE $$Ifa$$Ifkd[*$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la`ajotx|TNEEEE $$Ifa$$Ifkd +$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la|}TNEEEE $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkdh,$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 laWQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la#WQHHHH $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la#$%EF2WUSUUUUUUkdf.$$Iflr &f"@ 0"4 la 23? $$Ifa$$If 82$Ifkd/$$Ifl\\ jd! T (%%%%064 lap(%%%%6;@C $$Ifa$$Ifmkd<0$$Ifl4d!!  %064 laf4p %CDY^cfke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lafg~ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkdb2$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd#3$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 la(ke$Ifkd4$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 la()LQV[ $$Ifa$$Ifmkdl5$$Ifl4d!!  %064 laf4p %[\qv{ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd6$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd6$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd7$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 lake\\\ $$Ifa$$IfkdS8$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 la$)ke\\\ $$Ifa$$Ifkd9$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 la)*"#.;kiiigiiiieekd9$$Ifl\\ jd! T064 la Gkd:$$IflFN  bb %%%06    4 lap%%% $$Ifa$$Ifqk$Ifkd;$$IflFN  bb06    4 la $$If]a$&*.~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd!<$$IflFN  bb06    4 la./8<@~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd<$$IflFN  bb06    4 la@AVZ^~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd[=$$IflFN  bb06    4 la^_|~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd=$$IflFN  bb06    4 la   ~|z|||||||||zkd>$$IflFN  bb06    4 la   B ?   45w   !kx )sym!!#"|v h(CJjh(0J5CJU h(5CJ h(5CJh(56CJ] h(5CJh(5CJ\ h(5\h(56\] h(6] h(6jh(0JU h(5 h(CJ\ h(5CJ *h( h(\h( h(CJ. B C D   jkx ( $$Ifa$$If ,xH  X("$a$()HLSLF90 $$Ifa$ $8$If]8a$$Ifkd2?$$IfTl4+F KX +_  t%%%06    4 laf4p%%%TSTZ^btnaX $$Ifa$ $8$If]8a$$Ifkd^@$$IfTl4F KX +_ t06    4 laf4TbcknrtnaX $$Ifa$ $8$If]8a$$Ifkd'A$$IfTl4F KX +_ t06    4 laf4Trsn!o!~!!!tnnljjjjjjj`kdA$$IfTl4F KX +_ t06    4 laf4T !!"#"$"2"9"@"HkdB$$Ifl4Ft"( %%%0"    4 laf4p%%% $$Ifa$$If@"A"G"N"U"|vmm $$Ifa$$IfkdC$$Ifl4Ft"( 0"    4 laf4#"U"V"""""""""P#&&&&&&&'>(X)d)))) ***++++&-?-@-x/////½̬Ѕ|l|jh(0J5CJUaJh(5CJaJh(56\ h(CJ\ h(CJ\h(6CJ\] h(CJ\ h(\jh(0J5U h(5h(56\]h( h(5CJ h(5CJh(5CJ\]h(56CJ\ h(CJ h(5CJ(U"V"^"e"l"|vmm $$Ifa$$IfkdJD$$Ifl4Ft"( 0"    4 laf4l"m"{"""|vmm $$Ifa$$IfkdD$$Ifl4Ft"( 0"    4 laf4""""P#Q#%%&&&&&|zzzzzzzxvxxkdE$$Ifl4Ft"( 0"    4 laf4 &''(<( $$Ifa$$If<(>(Z(r((:4'' $$If]a$$IfkdTF$$Ifl\<E (%%%%064 lap(%%%%(((((()^X$IfkdnG$$Ifl\<E064 la $$If]a$))0)<)H)V)keXXX $$If]a$$Ifkd!H$$Ifl\<E064 laV)X))**+++++%-&-kiiiiiggieekdH$$Ifl\<E064 la &-?-@-//090:0O0c00 $$Ifa$$If /:00000000110111O1l1m111111{5555555556X6\6y88889@:U:::::::::׻|h(0JCJj]h(CJUjh(CJUh(6CJ] h(CJh(CJaJh(5CJ\ h(CJ\jh(0JCJU\ h(CJ\h(h(56CJh(5CJ] h(5CJ h(CJ h(CJ/00000XRE8 $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkdI$$IflF < BB %%%0O6    4 lap%%%00000~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$Ifkd{J$$IflF < BB0O6    4 la00000~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkdK$$IflF < BB0O6    4 la000 11~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkdK$$IflF < BB0O6    4 la11 1,101~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkddL$$IflF < BB0O6    4 la0111?1K1O1~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkdM$$IflF < BB0O6    4 laO1P1V1g1l1~xk^ $`$If]`a$ $$If]a$$IfkdM$$IflF < BB0O6    4 lal1m1111{555555~||zzxxzri $$Ifa$$IfkdMN$$IflF < BB0O6    4 la 555 66smdd $$Ifa$$IfkdN$$Ifl40 `   %%0z64 laf4p%%66,636:6UOBB $$If]a$$IfkdO$$Ifl4F    %%%0z6    4 laf4p%%%:6;6X6\6a6~xfY $$If]a$$ !$If]a$$Ifkd Q$$IflF  0z6    4 laa6b6666~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdQ$$IflF  0z6    4 la66666~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdnR$$IflF  0z6    4 la66666~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdS$$IflF  0z6    4 la66666~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdS$$IflF  0z6    4 la66777~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdoT$$IflF  0z6    4 la77074787~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdU$$IflF  0z6    4 la8797U7Y7^7~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdU$$IflF  0z6    4 la^7_7s7w7{7~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdpV$$IflF  0z6    4 la{7|7777~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdW$$IflF  0z6    4 la77777~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdW$$IflF  0z6    4 la77777~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdqX$$IflF  0z6    4 la77888~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdY$$IflF  0z6    4 la88,80848~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdY$$IflF  0z6    4 la4858M8Q8T8~xkk $$If]a$$IfkdrZ$$IflF  0z6    4 laT8U8q8u8x8~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd[$$IflF  0z6    4 lax8y8888~xkk $$If]a$$Ifkd[$$IflF  0z6    4 la888O:::.<0<L<<<==~||||zzzzztk $$Ifa$$Ifkds\$$IflF  0z6    4 la :0<<<<<R=T=>>H@z@{@@VABCCCCCCCDDDGG4GbH,I.I2I4Iֽvrfr_U_rjh(0JU h(5\h(56CJ\]h(h(0J5CJ\]"jkh(5CJU\]jh(5CJU\]h(5CJ\] h(5CJh(5CJ\h(56CJ\] h(CJ h(5CJh(5CJ\ h(CJ\jh(0JCJU h(CJ h(5CJ!=&=4=F=R=T=0kd ^$$Ifl4\ ` (%%%%0x4 laf4p(%%%% $$Ifa$T=v=========Vkd8_$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4 $ $If] a$$If ==>">&>*>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd_$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4*>+>I>M>Q>U>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd`$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4U>V>m>r>w>|>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd>a$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4|>}>>>>>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkda$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4>>>>>>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdb$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4>>>>>>icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd6c$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4>>>?? ?icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdc$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4 ? ? ?$?)?-?icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdd$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4-?.?H?L?P?T?icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd.e$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4T?U?q?v?{??icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkde$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4??????icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd~f$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4??????icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkd&g$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4??????icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdg$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4??@@@ @icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdvh$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4 @!@=@@@D@G@icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdi$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4G@H@e@l@s@z@icVVV $ $If] a$$Ifkdi$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4z@{@VBBDDGG4G5GbHdHiggggggb``` $a$kdnj$$Ifl4\ `0x4 laf4 dH~H2I4IZIlI~IIII $$$@&Ifa$ $$@&If IIII<3#$$ $@&If] a$ $$@&Ifkdl$$Ifl\*v [[[ (%%%%04 lap(%%%%4IIJJjLzLLLLLRMTMVMMMMQQQR:S;SS%T+TDTQT]T_TTTXUaU-\.\^\nnqKrvйƱЫ䈫|voh h(6] h(5\ h(CJh(B*phh( h(5 h(] h(CJ h(5CJ h(6CJ h(6 h(CJh(0JCJjbph(CJUjh(CJU h(CJ h(CJ] h(6CJ h(\h(6\] h(CJ\ h(5CJ(IIII#J*J1J8J\S $$@&Ifkdm$$Ifl\*v [[[04 la$$ $@&If] a$8J9JSJZJ_JdJlcSSS$$ $@&If] a$ $$@&Ifkdm$$Ifl\*v [[[04 ladJeJJJJJlcSSS$$ $@&If] a$ $$@&Ifkdjn$$Ifl\*v [[[04 laJJJJJJlcSSS$$ $@&If] a$ $$@&Ifkdo$$Ifl\*v [[[04 laJJjLMMQQQQRRlge_ggggg]h^h$@&kdo$$Ifl\*v [[[04 la RR:S;SCS\S]S^SySS[kdQq$$Ifl40 `  %%04 laf4p%% $$$@&Ifa$ $$@&If$@& SSSSSWN>.$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkd)r$$Ifl4F   $ %%0    4 laf4p%%SSSSSvfV$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkd's$$IflF   $ 0    4 laSSSSSvfV$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkds$$IflF   $ 0    4 laSSSSSvfV$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkdwt$$IflF   $ 0    4 laSST T TvfV$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkdu$$IflF   $ 0    4 la T T T"T$TvfV$$$@&If]a$$$$@&If]a$ $$@&Ifkdu$$IflF   $ 0    4 la$T%T]TTTXUYUaUbUVVZZ.\zxvzvvvvvvvv$@&kdov$$IflF   $ 0    4 la .\/\^\_\`\a^b^__aa@dAd~ddVfWf)i*ikknn=n>nqqtttyvzvvv={>{X{Y{ԅՅlm#$hi)*$$vvxyX{Y{ }}}V}l CRSԜ՜ `a78:ļĘ|||||m^h(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH u#h(5CJ OJQJ\mH nH u#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH uh(OJQJ#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH uh(5CJ\mH nH u h(\ h(5 h(6]h( h(5\"*ٛ  CRSԜ՜ $./`a$$ -= &#$+DA./]-a$$V./^V`a$  ./$  K./^Ka$՜ `a78uv=>R  ././$V./^V`a$$./a$ $./`a$ $h./`ha$ $h./`ha$:uv;=>@RS79NO89TŲͨ%&fghi³у³ќуу³sh(5OJQJ\mH nH uh(CJ OJQJh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(OJQJh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH u h(5CJ OJQJmH nH u h(5CJOJQJmH nH u,RS9:mn ./  ./ ./$ ;./^;a$ $ i./^ia$$./a$ $./`a$./ $./`a$ ./NO89TŲͨ%&fgh ./$./a$ $./`a$./ $./^`a$ ./^`$./^`a$hirEF6pq$./a$$./^`a$ $./`a$ ./  ./ ./ ! $../^.! -q'i &#$+DU./]- ! ../^.iEFpq$%GHklABDEfgQRuvɼ}}弭}nnnnh(H*OJQJmH nH u#h(5CJ OJQJ\mH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJ#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH uh(OJQJ#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH u+$%GHkl.ұAB $G./^G`a$$./a$ $./`a$ ./   ././ "$./`a$ " ./^DEfg9djڷS$h./^h`a$$./^`a$  ./$./a$ $./`a$uv@A HI  ./   Z./^Z ??./ $./`a$ ?././ #$./`a$ "$./`a$@A HIͿοп,-GH?@ghɺ嫚ɺ嫚ɺp嫚ɺ嫚ɺثh(CJOJQJmH nH u h(5CJ OJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJ h(5CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJ#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH u,IͿο,-GH ' ./ $./`a$ : ./ : ././$./a$?@ghk $./^`a$ ./`  ./ a ./ a ././$./a$ $./`a$ } ./ } ./L5  SNO¾ѾxiZѶxh(H*OJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH u h(5CJOJQJmH nH uh(5OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJh(h(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH u h(5CJ OJQJmH nH u h(5CJOJQJmH nH u!k45  jS&$./a$%$./^`a$ %$./`a$%$./a$ $$ ~ ./a$ $ ~ ./ ./ $./`a$$./^`a$WDhAo%$./^`a$./ %$./`a$%$./a$ %$./`a$ '[./^`[&$./a$o)iHY=>xy ( ./^ ($./`a$&$./a$ %$./`a$%$./^`a$ %./^`=>xydegtu34tuw  ʹʹلudR٢#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH u h(5CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(5OJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJ h(5CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(OJQJh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uydetu34tu RR./$ RR./^ %./`  ./ %  ./&$./a$ %$./`a$ ./ % ././ &$./`a$   .*+AI ) rt./^t)$./a$ )$./`a$)././*$./a$)$./^`a$ ./%  ./^ `*+IJFGbc'@A;</0pqǸǸǢǸǸǢ֍Ǹ~vh(OJQJh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(H*OJQJmH nH u h(CJ h(#h(5CJ OJQJ\mH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJ#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH u.IJ?FGwbc ) ./)$./a$*$./a$)$./^`a$ )$./`a$ ) rt./^t@AGu) J./^`)$./^`a$ )$./`a$ %$./`a$)$G./^G`a$)$./a$ )$./`a$ ) ./u;</0pq%$ H./^Ha$./ ) . ./  ./ +  ./^*$./a$ )$./`a$) ./^`)$./^`a$01hi"#egʸ⩚yg⩚Xʚʚh(5OJQJmH nH u#h(5CJ OJQJ\mH nH u#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJ OJQJmH nH u#h(5CJOJQJ\mH nH uh(5OJQJ\mH nH uh(OJQJh(OJQJmH nH u h(5CJ OJQJmH nH u";+ , ./^%$./^`a$ %$./`a$%$./a$ ./!$./a$! -(&#$+DU./]- ./+01hi"#efg % 2./^%$ 2./^a$ ./ $$ ./a$ $ Z./^Z%$./a$ %$./`a$%$V./^V`a$ ,$./`a$7q:K % _./%$ 1h./`ha$% 1*./^*` %$ 1./a$ %9./^9` %0./^`0 %*./^*`%./ %$ ../a$=gL~ Hh % c./^ %9./^9` % 7./^ % W./^W %h./`h%./ % ./` TU]^ 01oq!555666688̽Ԝ{ri\h(5OJQJ\^J jh(CJ0h(5CJ\ h(CJH* h(CJh(5CJ\ h(5\h( h(CJh(CJ OJQJ h(5CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(OJQJh(CJ OJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(OJQJmH nH u$h!TU|*]^ % ./^ %9./^9`% i./^i`% i./^i` %h./`h%./ $B\|01q|}$./a$ %./` ./ % ./ ./  h./`h./ % ./^%./2AFHMPSVYZpwFfQ} $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$FfLy $$Ifa$$Ifw|~ Ff$IfFfv $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$*8JRV`htFf$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ 0@HLV^jpFf/ $$Ifa$$IfFf  $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$Hfpt~ "Ffy $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFfT $$Ifa$ $$If]a$"$L\fjtz  +FfFfÜ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf+38:?BHMVWlsxzFf2Ff  $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If >FLNTFf|$IfFfW $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$TX^dlmFfƲ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$ ,6:DJPXjlFf $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $.2<DP\prFfFfZ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf5 "(.:LN FfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If"(4@TV,48BFf$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$BJPVfh$4>BLR^Ff] $$Ifa$$IfFf8 $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$^fxz  .<DHRZfrFf $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$  4 B L P Z ` l x   FfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf            & ) + 0 4 : @ H I _ g Ff`Ff; $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$Ifg l n s v y                  Ff$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$       & , 1 3 8 ; > C L M b i n p u x Ff $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$x {                      Ff> $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$   $ + 0 2 7 : = C L M c k p r w z }    FfFf $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFfc $$Ifa$                     ! - Ff Ff  $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If- 2 4 9 < ? F O P h r w y ~          FfA$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$              @R\`jpFf $$Ifa$$IfFff $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$p|Zlx|Ff  $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ '.35:=CIQRFfD*Ff' $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf# $$Ifa$Rhuz|Ff0Ffi- $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If :AFHMPV]fgw~Ff6$IfFf3 $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$Ff"= $$Ifa$$IfFf9 $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ .6;=BFLRZ[~FflC $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFfG@ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ !%*/FfLFfI $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFfF $$Ifa$2BLPZbnvRjFf%SFfP $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$Ifjtx24XhptFfoY$IfFfJV $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$t~.0l|Ff_ $$Ifa$$IfFf\ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ ,49;ADJQFff $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFfb $$Ifa$ $$If]a$QZ[iqvx}FfroFfMl $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf(i $$Ifa$ $057<@FKJ^FfuFfr $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If^hlv|  "2BFFf|$IfFfx $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$FPXdp,8>@FIFfP $$Ifa$$IfFf+ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$IORZ[mty{Ff $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFfu $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ (168=@FLTUFf Ff $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$Ugorty}FfSFf. $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If  $(*/369AB`hmoFf$IfFfx $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$otw{~ Ff $$Ifa$$IfFf¡ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ ")-/48=BJK[ejlqu{Ff1 $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf  $$Ifa$ $$If]a$  Ff{ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFfV $$Ifa$     " ' + 1 7 ? @ Z a e g l p v y    FfFfŷ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf                  !! !,!2!Ff4Ff $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If2!4!9!=!B!F!O!P!^!e!j!l!q!t!z!!!!!!!!!Ff~$IfFfY $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$!!!!"".">"F"J"T"\"h"t""""""""""Ff $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$""""4#R#\#`#j#r#~#########$$ $$Ff $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$$$N$^$h$l$v$|$$$$$$$$$$%%%,%.%H%FfFf\ $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf7H%X%`%d%n%t%%%%%%%%%%&& &&&/&;&@&FfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If@&B&G&K&Q&V&^&_&x&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Ff$IfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$&&&&&&&' '''''#'((H(`(l(p(z(((Ff_ $$Ifa$$IfFf: $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$((((((((((()))>)N)X)\)f)n)z)))Ff $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$))))))***$*8*:*b*p*z*~********FfFf $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf****+++ +4+6+R+j+r+v+++++++++,FfbFf= $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If,,,,",.,>,@,t,,,,,,,,,,,,---Ff $IfFf  $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$--"-(-8-:-h-v--------- .(.<.@.J.N.X.Ff $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$X.b.v.x...........*/>/H/L/X/`/l/x//Ff@ $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$////////////00#0%0*0.01070?0@0^0Ff"Ff $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFfe^0j0p0r0w0{00000000000000001 1Ff(Ff% $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If 1 11111%1&181?1E1G1L1P1V1[1c1d1~11111FfC/$IfFf, $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$11112262J2`2d2n2v222222222233Ff5 $$Ifa$$IfFfh2 $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $h$If]ha$33(3*3`3p3x3|3333333333333 44*4Ff; $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$$IfFf8 $$Ifa$ $$If]a$*4,4l444444444455 5$5.565<5H5X5Z5\5FfFEFf!B $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$IfFf>\5^5`5b5d5f5h5j5l5n5p5r5t5v5x5z5|5~555555FfKFfkH $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$$If55555555555555 6 606R6S6p6q66 $ pX @@@Ja$ pX @@@JFfN $$Ifa$ $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$6666666S7778L888Q:R:S:l::: $$Ifa$$If$h^ha$ $ & Fa$gdGh^h$a$$a$ $ pX @@@Ja$8*8F8H8J8L8888Q::::::::::::::;;;;;;3;4;5;6;7;8;R;S;T;U;V;W;w;x;y;z;{;|;;;;;;;<<<<<<E<F<G<H<I<J<<<<<<<<<<<<<_=`=a=b=c=d=f=g=== jh( h(CJ j4h( j5h(h( h(5\V:::::: $$Ifa$$IfmkdP$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah:::::: $$Ifa$$Ifmkd8Q$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah:::::: $$Ifa$$IfokdQ$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah::;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifokd|R$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah;;3;5;7;9; $$Ifa$$Ifokd'S$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah9;:;R;T;V;X; $$Ifa$$IfokdS$$Ifl\X %*F64 lahX;Y;w;y;{;}; $$Ifa$$Ifokd}T$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah};~;;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifokd(U$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah;;<<<< $$Ifa$$IfokdU$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah< <E<G<I<K< $$Ifa$$Ifokd~V$$Ifl\X %*F64 lahK<L<<<<< $$Ifa$$Ifokd)W$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah<<<<<< $$Ifa$$IfokdW$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah<<=_=a=c=e= $$Ifa$$IfokdX$$Ifl\X %*F64 lahe=f=g=== >d>>>? ?f???~uuuuuuuuuu$^a$ $ & Fa$gdG$h^ha$mkd*Y$$Ifl\X %*F64 lah =>>>>?????????;<@*A[AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBSBTBUBVBWBXByBzB{B|B}B~BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCLCMCNCOC jh(CJ0 h(5\ h(CJ jh(h(X????@;@<@*A+A,AAAKAZA $$Ifa$$If & FgdG$a$$^a$ ZA[A\A^A`AbA $$Ifa$$IfmkdY$$Ifl\ %*64 lahbAcAAAAA $$Ifa$$IfmkdbZ$$Ifl\ %*64 lahAAAAAA $$Ifa$$IfokdZ$$Ifl\ %*64 lahAAAAAA $$Ifa$$Ifokd[$$Ifl\ %*64 lahAAAAAA $$Ifa$$Ifokd'\$$Ifl\ %*64 lahAABBB B $$Ifa$$Ifokd\$$Ifl\ %*64 lah B!BSBUBWBYB $$Ifa$$Ifokda]$$Ifl\ %*64 lahYBZByB{B}BB $$Ifa$$Ifokd]$$Ifl\ %*64 lahBBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifokd^$$Ifl\ %*64 lahBBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifokd8_$$Ifl\ %*64 lahBBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifokd_$$Ifl\ %*64 lahBBCCC C $$Ifa$$Ifokdr`$$Ifl\ %*64 lah C!CLCNCPCRC $$Ifa$$Ifokda$$Ifl\ %*64 lahOCPCQCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDEaEbEEEEEEEFF9G:G;GGbGcGdGeGfGgGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGmIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJJJ h(CJ h(CJ$ jh(CJ$ jh( h(5\ jh( jh(h(PRCSCCCCC $$Ifa$$Ifokda$$Ifl\ %*64 lahCCCCCCCQDDDDDDDDD$a$okdIb$$Ifl\ %*64 lahDDDDEEJEaEbEEEEEFFFFFF $$Ifa$$If h^h`$a$$a$FFFFGG~~~ $$Ifa$$Ifqkdb$$Ifl\X D%*X644 lahGG9G;G=G?G~~~ $$Ifa$$Ifqkdvc$$Ifl\X D%*X644 lah?G@GbGdGfGhG||| $$Ifa$$Ifskdd$$Iflq\X D%*X644 lahhGiGGGGG||| $$Ifa$$Ifskdd$$Ifl^\X D%*X644 lahGGGGGG||| $$Ifa$$Ifskdfe$$IflU\X D%*X644 lahGGGGGG||| $$Ifa$$Ifskdf$$Ifl^\X D%*X644 lahGGGmInIoIvIwIIIIIypppppp $$Ifa$$If h^h`skdf$$Iflg\X D%*X644 lah IIIIIIIztkkkk $$Ifa$$Ifkdvg$$Iflrk?!&*644 lahIIIIIIIztkkkk $$Ifa$$Ifkdh$$Iflrk?!&*644 lahIIIIIIIxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdh$$Ifl rk?!&*644 lahIIJJ J"J$Jxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdi$$IflLrk?!&*644 lahJJ J!J"J#JCJDJEJFJGJHJIJJJkJlJmJnJoJpJqJrJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKHKIKJKKKLKMKNKOKwKxKyKzK{K|K}K~KKKKKKKKKL L L L L LLLLL)L-L h(5\ h(CJh( jh(Y$J%JCJEJGJIJKJxriiii $$Ifa$$IfkdNj$$Iflgrk?!&*644 lahKJLJkJmJoJqJsJxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$Ifl^rk?!&*644 lahsJtJJJJJJxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$IflUrk?!&*644 lahJJJJJJJxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdl$$Ifl^rk?!&*644 lahJJJJJJJxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdfm$$Iflgrk?!&*644 lahJJKKKKKxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkd,n$$Ifl^rk?!&*644 lahKKHKJKLKNKPKxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$IflUrk?!&*644 lahPKQKwKyK{K}KKxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl^rk?!&*644 lahKKKKKKKxriiii $$Ifa$$Ifkd~p$$Iflgrk?!&*644 lahKKKL L LLLxrriiii $$Ifa$$IfkdDq$$Ifl^rk?!&*644 lahLLLL)L4L9LXLpLqLLLLxvvqllqqqvvv$a$$a$kdr$$IflUrk?!&*644 lah -L3L4L9LLLLLLLMM>M?MEMFMLMeMfMMMqNrNOOOOO P P PPP PYP[P\PQQQQRRRRhRiRoRpRuRvRRRRRRSS.S1SUSXSsSvSSSSSHTITOTPTTTTTT UUUU h(CJ(h(5CJ\ jh( h(CJ h(5\h( h(CJ0 jh(CJ(PLLMMeMfMMMMNqNrNN5OHOIOJO$If`^ & FgdGh`hJOKObOcOdO~xxx$Ifkdr$$IflFX "06    4 ladOeOOOO~xxx$Ifkds$$IflFX "06    4 laOOOOO~xxx$Ifkd&t$$IflFX "06    4 laOOOO P\PPQrQQRuR~xpjdxddddd`8^8 & FgdG^kdt$$IflFX "06    4 la uRvRRRRSYSSSSSUTTTTTTU4U5U\UUUUUUTV$a$$a$^ & FgdG`UOUPUVUWUxUyUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVV6W7W=W>WWWWWWWWWWFXIXKXmXpXrXXXXYYY(Y+Y.YlYoYpYYYYYYYYYYYYYZSZVZWZXZZZZZZZZ [[*[-[E[H[o[r[ h(CJ h(5\ h(CJ( jh(CJ( jh(h(VTVUVVVVCWWWWWWWJXqXXXXY,YpYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYZWZXZZZZZ[.[I[s[[[[ \ \4\U\w\\ ^` h^`h^$a$$a$r[[[[[[[ \ \Q\T\s\v\\\\\]]]]]2^5^6^7^w^x^~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^$_'_(_)_V_W_]_^_____``5`6`H`I`w`x`````` aaaaaDaaaaaaaaaa h(5\ jh( h(CJ h(CJ( h(CJ jh(CJ(h(S\\\=]]]]6^7^^^^^^(_)_c___ `X````` a$`a$` h^`h aaaDaEaaaaabbbb|bbbcZccc%dfdddd & FgdG``` & FgdG`$`a$aabbbb|b}bbbbbbbbbccc c9c:cZc[c~ccccccccdd%d&dHdIdddddqereteueeeeeeeeef fff-f.ffffffffffffBgEgHgRgUg_gbgegpgsg}gggg h(CJ( jh(CJ( h(5\ jh( h(6]h( h(CJSdddd$e%eqereeeee=f>fffff6g7gVgtgggggg$^a$$^a$^`ggggggggh!h"h#hQhRhhhhhhh i!iaibiiiiiii0j1j2jVjWjwjxjjjjkk'k*kCkFkZk]kokrkkkkkkkkkkѭѭѭѭѭѭѭѭѭѢѭѭѢѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕ jh(CJ(OJQJh(CJmH nH u jh(OJQJh(OJQJ h(6CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH u h(CJ h(CJ( jh(CJ(h( h(5\:ggg!h"hQhhhh iaiiii1jVjwjjjkk+kGk^k -./^./-./- 6&./^` -h./`h^kskkkkkDlElqlrllllll mm   ./`  e./`   ./`   ./`./ ../`-./  g./ ^` -./^kElqlrlllllllll mmmm2m3mImJmkmlmmmmmmmmmmm(n)nGnHncndnynznnnno oooooooѳ h(6] h(CJ( jh(CJ( h(5\ jh(OJQJh(CJmH nH u jh( h(CJ h(6CJOJQJmH nH uh(CJOJQJmH nH uh(5CJ\mH nH uh(5CJ\mH nH uh(2m2mImkmlmmmmmm'nFnbnxnnnno ooo p` ^`$a$$a$  @./` - ./`  ./` pvppp7q8qyqzqqqqqWrXrrrrrss6s7sssss!t"tWt`o7q8q9q:qEqFqQqRqjqkqzqqqqqqrrrrrrrrsssss3s5s6s}s~sssssssssJtKtQtRtXtntrtxtytttw { | |O|P|G}H}}}~~h~i~~~~ž h(CJ h(6CJ h(CJ h(5h(5CJ\ h(CJ( jh(CJ( h(5\ jh( h(CJh(FWtXtntytttttww8x9xxxxxYyy#z$zzzzzzzzz {$a$$a$ { {5{9{L{m{{{{{{{ | |-|O|P|}}~~h~i~~~~ & F `gdG pX @@@J$a$~~~XeiuvwRS‚łƂ˂ςւق-.߄Q|<=ԇՇ  "#'YfiwďΏ Tly|x h(5CJh(56>*CJh(56CJ h(CJ h(CJ h(6CJS~"#vwBRSق-. ` ^``^ & F gdG `^ `r߄|}  A|†#=>` & F `gdG` & F gdG `^ ``aՇևRSuv'(wxOي#k=ˍ`^ ` & F `gdGˍɎ>_TU[ʑ[ ` & F `gdGh`h ^` ^` & F gdG^[\6vΓ:V)*–bch`h ` & F `gdG&d P ^`^/:ƖՖ bǗԗח^kn{,.sܞ"8Bi{}06W]þMTu{XXXھ߾߾߾߾߾ھ߾߾߼߾U h(>* h(6jh(5U\ h(5\ h(5h( h(5CJ h(CJ h(6CJh(56CJJ2F./|}mܛ*}ל hit & F `gdG`^h`htuʞ˞VaMN $a$$a$ `0^`0`^ `΢6BNR2{~~~~~~ 2`0p@ P !$d1$$ `0d1$]a$#$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$a$#$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$a$$a${MNѨҫӫ|} 2`0p@ P !$d1$  9:YZ)*$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$^h 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h` *HI01mF' /`0p@ P !$d1$^`$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h( 2`0p@ P !$d1$^` 2`0p@ P !$d1$# /`0p@ P !$hd1$`h()ҲӲ12HIo# /`0p@ P !$d1$^' /`0p@ P !$d1$^`$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$^ 2`0p@ P !$d1$ Iͳγ+?@  KLm' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h`$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$ LϵеghkF$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h`$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>/07VW^' /`0p@ P !$Ld1$^`L 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h`ľkLMUtu|XXXY 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$Ld1$^`Lss on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% white, 10% black and 10% Hispanic and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 4 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is one-third black, one-third white and one-third Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 5 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% black, 10% white and 10% Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. Form 6 At the Meadow Brook school, the students score just below the midpoint on reading and math scores, there is a strong stress on teaching moral values, the racial mix of the school is 80% White, 10% black and 10% Hispanic, and the school is located about a mile from your zip code address. UNSURE REFUSED 0 - - - 1 - - - 2 - - -3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 77 99 15. Returning to the Charter School your child currently attends, How did you learn about the Charter School? (RECORD) Newspapers___1 Television or radio___1 Private Schools___1 Public Schools___1 Community Center___1 Church___1 Friends/Relatives___1 Teachers___1 At work____1 On the Internet___1 Other (write in)_______________________ 16. Do you know the average number of students in the classes of the Charter school your child attends? Number________ 17. Do you know what grade levels are offered at the Charter School your child attendsthat is grades between Kindergarten and 12th grade? Grade levels_________ 18. Do you know approximately how many students total attend the Charter School your child attends. Number_____ 19. Finally, do you the name of the principle at the Charter School your child attends? Name________ 20. In order for your child to be admitted the Charter School, did you have you to agree to do volunteer work at the school? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 21. [IF YES] What volunteer work did you agree to perform (record comments) 22. What is the name of the school your child attended before he or she went to a Charter School? __________________________________________________________________ 23. What is the name of the school district in which that school is located? __________________________________________________________________ 24. Have you talked to other parents about courses and activities at the Charter School? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 NO___3 25. [IF YES] Please estimate about how many different parents with which you have discussed charter school activities. Number of parents__________ 26. Different parents have different reasons for sending their children to Charter Schools. I will read you a list of some of the things parents think are important about a school. Which of the following characteristics of the Charter School your child attended last year was the single most important reason for moving your child to that Charter School. The reasons are: Randomly Rotate Order High math or reading scores___1 Better Discipline___2 A racially diverse student body___3 The location of the Charter School___4 Teaching moral values in school___5 Safety_____6 NONE/CANT CHOOSE/DONT KNOW___7 27. Next I will read you the five remaining characteristics from our initial list. Which of the remaining five was the most important reason for moving your child to a Charter School? Randomly Rotate Order High math or reading scores___1 Better discipline___2 A racially diverse student body___3 The location of the Charter School___4 Teaching moral values in school___5 Safety___6 NONE/CANT CHOOSE/DONT KNOW___7 28. Finally, I will read you the last four characteristics. Which of the last four was the most important reason for moving your child to a Charter School? Randomly Rotate Order High math or reading scores___1 Better discipline code___2 A racially diverse student body___3 The location of the Charter School___4 Teaching moral values in school___5 Safety___6 NONE/CANT CHOOSE/DONT KNOW___7 29a. [ IF RACE IS BLACK] How important is it to you that your child attend a Charter School where a majority of the students are black or African Americanvery important, somewhat important, or not important? Very important___1 Somewhat___2 Not important___3 UNSURE___4 RF___0 29b. [ IF Hispanic] How important is it to you that your child attend a Charter School where a majority of the students are Mexican-American or Hispanicvery important, somewhat important, or not important? Very important___1 Somewhat___2 Not important___3 UNSURE___4 RF___0 29c. [ IF WHITE] How important is it to you that your child attend a Charter School where a majority of the students are Whitevery important, somewhat important, or not important? Very important___1 Somewhat___2 Not important___3 UNSURE___4 RF___0 29d. [IF ASIAN] How important is it to you that your child attend a Charter School where a substantial percentage of the students are Asian? Very important___1 Somewhat___2 Not important___3 UNSURE___4 RF___0 29e. [IF OTHER] How important is it you that your child attend a Charter School where a substantial percentage of the students have the same race or ethnicity as your child. Very important___1 Somewhat___2 Not important___3 UNSURE___4 RF___0 30. Do you subscribe to a daily newspaper? Yes__1 UNSURE___2 NO___3 31. Do you have a dictionary in your home? Yes__1 UNSURE___2 NO___3 32. Do you have an encyclopedia in your home? Yes__1 UNSURE___2 NO___3 33. Do you have a computer in your home that your child uses for school work? Yes__1 UNSURE___2 NO___3 34. In the past two years, have you ever done work in any of the following organizations. I mean, been a leader, helped organize a meeting, been an officer, or given time. First Church groups (read rest of list) Church groups Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Sports groups Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Youth Groups Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Hobby or garden clubs Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Political groups Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Nationality or ethnic groups Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Neighborhood civic clubs Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Labor union Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 Any other type of group Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No____3 35. On an average day, about how many hours to you personally spend watching television? _________________ 36. At the school your child attended before he or she went to a Charter School, in general were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . [Randomly Rotate Order] Very Somewhat Somewhat Verya Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied UNSURE a. the teachers 4 3 2 1 5 b. teaching moral values 4 3 2 1 5 c. the location 4 3 2 1 5 d. the discipline 4 3 2 1 5 e. parent/teacher relations 4 3 2 1 5 f. parents have adequate say in how the school was run 4 3 2 1 5 g. the background of the students 4 3 2 1 5 37. At the Charter school your child attended last year, in general were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with: Very Somewhat Somewhat Verya Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied UNSURE a. the teachers 4 3 2 1 5 b. teaching moral values 4 3 2 1 5 c. the location 4 3 2 1 5 d. the discipline 4 3 2 1 5 e. parent/teacher relations 4 3 2 1 5 f. parents have adequate say in how the school was run 4 3 2 1 5 g. the background of the students 4 3 2 1 5 38. If you were to grade the school your child attended before going to a charter school from A to F, what grade would you give it? (RECORD) A___1 B____2 C____3 D___4 F___5 UNSURE___6 39 If you were to grade the Charter School your child attended last year, what grade would you give it? A___1 B____2 C____3 D___4 F___5 UNSURE___6 40. At the Charter school your child attended last year, did you or your spouse ever: Yes UNSURE No a. attend PTO meetings or other special schools meetings 1 2 3 b. do volunteer work or be involved in school activities 1 2 3 c. attend a school board meeting 1 2 3 d. help make program of curriculum decisions 1 2 3 e. help with fund raising 1 2 3 f. attend parent/teacher conferences 1 2 3 41. In your view, was the school your child attended before going to a charter school safe, somewhat unsafe or very unsafe? Safe___1 Somewhat unsafe___2 Very unsafe___3 UNSURE___4 42 Where would your child have gone to school last year if the Charter School option had not been available? (READ OPTIONS) Neighborhood public school___1 Magnet public school___2 Private religious school____3 Private non-religious school___4 Home school____5 Would have dropped out___6 DK___7 43. At the school your child attended before going to the Charter School, did you or your spouse ever Yes UNSURE No a. attend PTO meetings or other special schools meetings 1 2 3 b. do volunteer work or be involved in school activities 1 2 3 c. attend a school board meeting 1 2 3 d. help make program of curriculum decisions 1 2 3 e. help with fund raising 1 2 3 f. attend parent/teacher conferences 1 2 3 44. In summary, how satisfied were you with the Charter School your child attended last year very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? Very satisfied___1 Somewhat satisfied____2 Somewhat dissatisfied___3 Very dissatisfied____4 UNSURE 5 45. It is important for us to know if your child falls into the at risk category. The state defines a student as being at risk if he or she has failed any section of the most recent TAAS exam, or has failed two or more courses in the previous year. Does your oldest child who attended a Charter School last year fall into this at risk category? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 RF___0 Finally, Id like to finish by asking you a few brief background questions. 46. What is the highest level of education you completed? (RECORD) 8th grade or less___1 9-11th grade___2 GED___3 High School Grad____4 Less than two years college___5 More than two years of college, but no degree___6 College degree___7 Graduate degree___8 RF___0 47. Are you currently employed full time, part time, looking for work, disabled, in school, a homemaker, or retired? Full time___1 Part time___2 Looking___3 Disabled___4 In school____5 Homemaker___6 Retired___7 48. [IF FULL TIME OR PART TIME] How many hours a week do you work? ______________________ 49. Are you married and living with your spouse, not married but living in a marriage like relationship, separated or divorced, never married, or widowed? Married w/spouse____1 Marriage like relationship___2 Separated or divorced____3 Never Married____4 Widowed___5 RF___0 50. [IF MARRIED/LIVING WITH PARTNER] Is your spouse/partner employed full-time, part-time, or not working? Full time___1 Part time___2 Not working____3 51. [IF YES TO Q49] How often do you attend religious servicesmore than once a week, once a week, several times a month, a few times a year, or never? More than once a week___1 Once a week___2 Several times a month___3 A few times a year___4 Never___5 UNSURE___6 52. Do you, yourself, happen to be involved in any charity or social service activities, such as helping the poor, the sick or the elderly? Yes___1 UNSURE___2 No___3 53. Other than for your childs school, in the past two years, have you worked with others to get people in your immediate neighborhood to work together to fix or improve something? Yes___1 No___2 54. Next I have a few questions about your immediate neighbors. These are the 10 or 20 households that live closest to you. About how often do you talk or visit with your immediate neighborsjust about everyday, several times a week, several times a month, once a month, several times a year, once a year or less, or never? About every day___1 Several times a week___2 Several times a month___3 Once a month__3 Several times a year___4 Once a year or less___5 Never___6 Dont know___7 RF__0 55. Overall, how much impact do you think people like you can have in making your community a better place to liveno impact, a small impact, a moderate impact, or a big impact? No impact___1 Small impact___2 Moderate impact___3 A big impact___4 Dont know___5 56. Which of the following languages are spoken in your home? (RECORD) English___1 Spanish___1 Chinese___1 Vietnamese__1 Other___1 57. What is your zip code? ______ 58. Last year, in which category did your total family income fall? (READ OPTIONS) Less than $5000___1 $5000-$9,999___2 $10,000-$14,999___3 $15,000-$19,999___4 $20,000-$24,999___5 $25,000-$34,999___6 $35,000-$49,999___7 $50,000-$74,999____8 more than $75,000____9 RF___0 59. One final question. Were you born in the United States? Yes___1 No___2 RF___0 Thank you for your time. CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENT SURVEY 2000 2001 Marking Instructions: Please fill in circles using a black ink pen. Do not use pencil or blue ink. Fill in the circles completely. If you make a mistake and need to choose another answer, cross out the wrong answer. 1. What grade are you in? ( 6th( 7th( 8th( 9th( 10th( 11th( 12th( GED 2. Would you like to go to college?( Yes( No( Not Sure 3. Did you attend this school last year? ( Yes( No 4. If you had not come to this school, what school would you probably have attended this year (Select one) ( I would have gone to a regular public school.( I would not be in school. ( I would have gone to a private school.( I dont know. ( I would have been home schooled. How important were these reasons for your attending this school rather than some other school? Very ImportantImportantNot Very ImportantNot Important 5. This school is in a better location than other school (for example, closer to home or easier for my parents to drop me off).( 1( 2( 3( 4 6. It offers classes that better fit what I need.( 1( 2( 3( 4 7. My parents wanted me to go to this school.( 1( 2( 3( 4 8. My friends were switching to this school, and I wanted to stay with them.( 1( 2( 3( 4 9. This school has better teachers.( 1( 2( 3( 410. I was getting into trouble at the other school.( 1( 2( 3( 411. There are too many troublemakers in the other school.( 1( 2( 3( 412. I get more attention from teachers here.( 1( 2( 3( 413. Compared to the other school, are students at this school more or less likely to skip classes? (Select one) ( More likely at other school( More likely at this school ( No difference between other and this school( Not sure14. Compared to the other school, how safe do you feel at this school? (Select one) ( Safer than other school( About the same( Less safe than other school15. Compared to the school you would probably have attended, do you think this school is better, no different, or worse in terms of:BetterNo DifferentWorseNot Surea. Being closer to home( 1( 2( 3( 4b. Having teachers who care about me( 1( 2( 3( 4c. Having order in the classroom( 1( 2( 3( 4d. Having interesting classes( 1( 2( 3( 4e. Feeling safe at school( 1( 2( 3( 4f. Having good teachers( 1( 2( 3( 4g. Having better choice of classes( 1( 2( 3( 4h. Getting personal attention from teachers ( 1( 2( 3( 4i. Feeling like I belong( 1( 2( 3( 4j. Having fewer students in each class( 1( 2( 3( 4k. Having a principal who cares about me( 1( 2( 3( 4 16. Whose idea was it for you to attend this school? (Select one)( My idea( My familys idea( My family and I decided together( Someone elses idea17. How would you grade this school from A to F?( A( B( C( D( F( Dont know18. How would you grade the school you attended last year from A to F? (Answer if not this school)( A( B( C( D( F( Dont know19. So far, how satisfied are you with this school?( Very satisfied( Satisfied( Not satisfied20. Does your best friend go to this school?( Yes( No21. Do you plan on staying at this school next year? (Select one)( Yes( No, I will switch schools( No, I will graduate( I dont know22. Do you think the sports and clubs are better at this school or at other schools? (Select one)( Better at this school( About the same as other schools( Better at other schools( Not sure23. How interested are you in schoolwork? (Select one)( Very interested( Interested( A little interested( Not at all interested24. What do you want to do when you finish high school?( Get a job( Go to a community college( Not Sure( Go to a technical school( Join the military( Go to a four year college( Other25. Which activities are you involved in? (Mark as many as apply)( School sports( Neighborhood sports( Boys & Girls club( Other( Drama/theater( Dance clubs( Language clubs( Church group( Yearbook staff( Boy or Girl scouts( Volunteer work( Band/orchestra/choir( Ethnic clubs26. Below are some statements. Please check how well each describes you.YesSometimes Noa. I am smart( 1( 2( 3b. I am well-behaved in school( 1( 2( 3c. I have good ideas( 1( 2( 3d. School is boring( 1( 2( 3e. Too many adults tell me what to do( 1( 2( 3f. I am an important member of my class( 1( 2( 3g. I can give a good report in front of my class( 1( 2( 3h. I like being the way I am( 1( 2( 3i. I can succeed if I try hard enough( 1( 2( 3j. My classmates think I have good ideas( 1( 2( 3k. I am satisfied with my grades( 1( 2( 3l. I work hard in school( 1( 2( 3m. I can be anything I want when I get older( 1( 2( 3n. I like to try to figure things out on my own( 1( 2( 3o. I am proud of my ethnic background( 1( 2( 3 27. What do you think the future is going to be like?( Much better than now( The same as now( Much worse than now( Better than now( Worse than now As you think about your future, please tell us how important each of the following goals are to you: Very ImportantSomewhat ImportantNot very ImportantNot at all Important28. Being successful in your work( 1( 2( 3( 429. Using your abilities in your work( 1( 2( 3( 430. Having lots of money( 1( 2( 3( 431. Having plenty of time for playing( 1( 2( 3( 432. Getting married( 1( 2( 3( 433. Having children( 1( 2( 3( 434. Having strong friendships( 1( 2( 3( 435. Making a contribution to society( 1( 2( 3( 436. Being a leader in the community( 1( 2( 3( 437. Being active in the community( 1( 2( 3( 438. Living close to parents or relatives( 1( 2( 3( 439. Owning your own home( 1( 2( 3( 440. Working to correct social and economic inequalities( 1( 2( 3( 4 Finally, just a few more questions. 41. Are you male or female?( Male( Female42. Do you think of yourself as: (Select one)( White or Anglo( Black or African-American( Other group( Hispanic or Mexican-American( Asian or Asian-American43. What is your age? (Select one)( Nine or younger( Twelve( Fifteen( Eighteen( Ten( Thirteen( Sixteen( Nineteen( Eleven( Fourteen( Seventeen( Twenty or older THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP  At the time of analysis, the at-risk information could not be obtained from three schools (21st Century Academy for Science and Technology, Eastpark Prep, and Kenny Dorham School for the Performing Arts), so they were excluded from some analyses.  The risk factors are listed on ڒs web site ( HYPERLINK http://www.sdfksjdflkjdsflkjfds www.tea.state.tx.us).  According to the glossary for the AEIS, the fund balance percentage refers to the percent of unencumbered surplus fund balance of the total budgeted expenditures for 1999-00.  TAAS testing and its use as a performance standard are more fully explained in the next section of this chapter. Detailed information regarding these ratings is available at the web site.  The list of courses designated as advanced can be found at the web site under AEIS reports.  This problem is not restricted to charter schools; however, the level of fatal PEIMS errors for charter schools is higher than for regular public schools.  This information was collected from the Division of Student Assessment. Information is not posted for all grades combined.  Turnover is computed by dividing the total number of teachers not returning in the 2000-01 school year by the total number of teachers employed during the 1999-00 school year.  It is likely that this is a very low estimate because most districts do not maintain formal systems for tracking enrolled students who leave to attend charter schools.  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1998, A National Study of Charter Schools: Second Year Report, p. 37.  Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Louann A. Bierlein, and Gregg Vanourek, 1997, Hudson Institute Charter Schools in Action Project: Final Report.  U.S. Department of Education, A National Study of Charter Schools, p. 70.  Elementary school students were excluded from the study because of their limited reading ability and restricted school experience.  One report has noted that where public schools inform students and parents about education choice options, race and class differences between choosers and non-choosers are minimized (Mark Schneider, Paul Teske, and Melissa Marschall, 2000, Choosing Schools, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.)   HYPERLINK "http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us" http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us  http:// HYPERLINK http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/ www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/  Texas Education Code, Chapter 42, Subchapter E.  Basic allotment adjustments for cost of education index and enrollment size are based on county averages.  Texas Education Code 12.102(4).  The Academy of Austin (enrollment: 94) is not included among these data since classification information was not available for this school.  , Snapshot 2000, pp. 392 and 393.  Financial reports were not available for six charter schools: the Academy of Austin, Bolding Academy, Heritage Academy, Houston High School for Business, Nova, and Renaissance. Therefore, data for these schools are not included.  Financial reports were not available for six charter schools: the Academy of Austin, Bolding Academy, Heritage Academy, Houston High School for Business, Nova, and Renaissance. Therefore, data for these schools are not included.  Financial reports were not available for six charter schools: the Academy of Austin, Bolding Academy, Heritage Academy, Houston High School for Business, Nova and Renaissance. Therefore, data for these schools are not included.     1999-00 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 6 PAGE 90 PAGE 64 1999-00 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 65 1999-00 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 82 1999-00 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 144 * Low percentage may be due to data quality problems. Note: OE represents Open-Enrollment  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8   EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  YYY [[[7\8\\6]7]]]]]]]^^!^7^D^ 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$Ld1$^`LXYY[[__)a3a(c3c5eJeefffggahvh,iHiRigipjjkkllmmwmssIttwcwzz~r&?`kmIghkmnortuvy¹ h(CJH* jh(CJ h(CJh(5CJ\ h(CJh(5CJ\h(5CJ\h(5CJ \ h(>* h(6 h(5 h(H* h(>*h(@D^Q^e^^^^^^______$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h` 2`0p@ P !$d1$ _````v`w```aa%a&am$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> &arasaabbhbbbcc%c&c$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$`' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> 2`0p@ P !$d1$ &cccccc4e5eKekeeeemmmmm$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h` eeefffffg&gJgqggmmmmmm$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$`' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> 2`0p@ P !$d1$$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h gggg`hahwhhhhh!i,iMiNij j' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> 2`0p@ P !$d1$$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` jlj;kd1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` gmhmnncndnnnnnnnnn)o*oGo 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$d1$^`$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$`GoHoooooppppqQqqiiiii( 2`0p@ P !$@ d1$^@ `' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$ qqq$r\r]rrrrsssti' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$( 2`0p@ P !$@ d1$^@ ` ttttu&uQunuuuuc( 2`0p@ P !$`'d1$^`'`( 2`0p@ P !$@ td1$^@ `t( 2`0p@ P !$$pd1$^$`p 2`0p@ P !$d1$ umvnvvdwwwwwx8xbxe( 2`0p@ P !$@ td1$^@ `t( 2`0p@ P !$$pd1$^$`p 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> bxxx y!y\y]yyyzzYzZzii$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h` 2`0p@ P !$d1$( 2`0p@ P !$`'d1$^`'` Zzz%{i{{{{.|/|||||i$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$`' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>( 2`0p@ P !$!@d1$^!`@ 2`0p@ P !$d1$ |l}m}#~$~~~Y.kkkkk( 2`0p@ P !$!@d1$^!`@# /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h 2`0p@ P !$d1$' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h` .bcނkD' /`0p@ P !$hd1$^h`# /`0p@ P !$d1$^' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`> 2`0p@ P !$d1$( 2`0p@ P !$!@d1$^!`@ނ߂  XY;no' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h 2`0p@ P !$d1$ QRKLˆ̆8oo' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$# /`0p@ P !$d1$^ 89lm01o# /`0p@ P !$d1$^' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$ CDHI' /`0p@ P !$>d1$^`>$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$IUam{Uʎˎ $ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$$ 2`0p@ P !$hd1$`h  %&?@AB`lmIJgnu|$If $$Ifa$ V$If$a$ pX @@@J$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$` 2`0p@ P !$d1$y{|}ΐϐՐ֐ېܐ !ˑ̑'(Mklpquvz{Óē ]^bcghlmh(5CJ\ jh(CJ h(CJ h(CJH*X|ΐՐې~ V$Ifkkdvy$$Ifl\$*x4 lalFfw$Ifېkkdz$$Ifl\$*x4 lal$If &$If V$Ifkkdz$$Ifl\$*x4 lal&'(){H> V$If2kd{$$Ifl$$4 lal$If~kd&{$$IflF$     4 lalpˑCEkd|$$Ifl0$x4 lal$If2kd|$$Ifl$$4 lal V$If2kd9|$$Ifl$$4 lal%&KLMǒڒ~~~uuuu $$Ifa$2kd}$$Ifl$$4 lalEkd9}$$Ifl0$x4 lal$If kpuzYG>>>> $$Ifa$ VV$If^V`kd}$$IflrHl$H04 lal V$Ifkd~$$IflrHl$H 204 lalp2ÓȓɓA7 V$Ifkd$$IflrHl$H04 lal$ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$  $$Ifa$ kd$$IflrHl$H 204 lalp2]bglqr>kd$$IflrHl$H04 lal $$Ifa$ VV$If^V`r$ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$ V$If V$Ifkd$$IflrHl$H 204 lalp205PBV$If^V`kd$$IflrHl$H04 lal $$Ifa$0156:;?@rswx|}!"ABpqޖߖ  ח*+./0459:`adefjkop˜ØƘǘȘ̘͘јҘ'(+h(h(5CJ\ h(CJ jh(CJZ5:?D $$Ifa$DEr V$Ifkd$$IflrHl$H 204 lalp2rw|A;$Ifkd߅$$IflrHl$H04 lal$ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$A7 V$Ifkd$$IflrHl$H04 lal$ $Ifa$ $$Ifa$$Ifikde$$Ifl$$  04 lalp !?$Iflkd$$Ifl0$04 lal?@p|$Iflkd$$Ifl0$04 lal|}~Ӗ2( V$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lal$Iflkd]$$Ifl0$04 lalӖԖՖ֖ז$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lalזؖ *yyy$Ifkd $$IflF $   0    4 lal*+,-yYkd$$Ifl$$04 lal$Ifkdۋ$$IflF $   0    4 lal-ȗΗח~uuuu $$Ifa$$Ifikd%$$Ifl$$  04 lalp  VV$If^V`חؗYOFFFF $$Ifa$ V$If`VkdӍ$$Iflr X $8804 lal* V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2*/49>?`ejPF V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $8804 lal $$Ifa$jot $$Ifa$tu V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2˜ǘ̘PF V$If`Vkd=$$Iflr X $8804 lal $$Ifa$̘ј֘ $$Ifa$֘ט V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2',1PF V$If`Vkdr$$Iflr X $8804 lal $$Ifa$+,-1267ijmnostxyәԙיؙٙݙޙ !&)lmnoyz  P h(CJ h(CJ jh(CJh([16; $$Ifa$;<i V$If`VkdQ$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2insx}~PF V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $8804 lal $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ә V$If`Vkd$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2әؙݙPF V$If`Vkdܘ$$Iflr X $8804 lal $$Ifa$ % $$Ifa$%&(kd$$Iflr X $88 204 lalp2(klmn6^kd$$Ifl4u$$04 lalf4$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lal V$IfnyȚɚʚRkd?$$Ifl\$ 04 lal  $If$If  $If` ʚ˚/)$Ifikd$$Ifl$$  04 lalp V$If\kd$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4 &u $If $If W$If$If $If`Ykd_$$Ifl$$04 lal&'(F@$Ifkd$$Iflֈ@ j$***04 lal()>8$IfYkdd$$Ifl$$04 lal V$If\kdϟ$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4 $If$If $If`Ykd$$Ifl$$04 lalF@$Ifkd$$Iflֈ@ j$***04 lal/)$Ifikd$$Ifl$$  04 lalp V$If\kdc$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4 $If  $If` Ykd$$Ifl$$04 lal !"#y\kd$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4$Ifkd5$$IflF $ 0    4 lal#PW]^_okd$$IflF $80    4 lal$If V$IfPQWXɜʜVWXYqr  01ڞ۞`abcst˟̟ߟ+,CDʠˠϠРԠՠh(5CJ\ h(CJ h(CJ jh(CJY_`/)$Ifikdզ$$Ifl$$  04 lalp V$If\kd@$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4ɜ$If  $If` Ykd$$Ifl$$04 lallf$Ifkd$$Ifl\T:^$T $ 2 04 lalUVW>8$IfYkdx$$Ifl$$04 lal V$If\kd$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4WXq $If^  $If` Ykd$$Ifl$$04 lallf$Ifkd$$Ifl\ $ N 04 lal/)$Ifikd$$Ifl$$  04 lalp V$If\kdg$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4 0I$If  $If` Ykd$$Ifl$$04 lalIJKlf$Ifkd9$$Ifl\ B$ pN 04 lalKL>8$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lal V$If\kd $$Ifl4$$04 lalf4$If  $If` Ykd.$$Ifl$$04 lalڞuoo$If  $If` kd$$IflF $   0    4 laluoo$If  $If` kdx$$IflF $   0    4 lalyyy$Ifkd3$$IflF $   0    4 lal_u V$Ifkd$$IflF $   0    4 lal_`abs3)  $If` \kdW$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4$Ifikd$$Ifl$$  04 lalp s˟ݟޟf\  $If` kd$$Ifl\~ $~ $ $ 04 lal$Ifޟߟlb\\\$If  $If` kd$$Ifl\~ $~ $ $ 04 lal+CSTlb\\\$If  $If` kdr$$Ifl\~ $~ $ $ 04 lalTUVWXYlffff$Ifkd5$$Ifl\~ $~ $ $ 04 lalYZlb V$Ifkd$$Ifl\~ $~ $ $ 04 lalE<< $$Ifa$YkdJ$$Ifl$$04 lal$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lalʠϠԠ٠bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kdٸ$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`٠ڠ<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(#$()BCGHLMxy}~#$()TUYZ^_âĢȢɢ$%)*./deijno h(CJh( jh(CJ h(CJ[ #(-bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`-.BGL<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(LQRx}bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`#(<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp((-.TY^cbTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`cd<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(âȢ͢bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`͢΢<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp($).3bTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`34din<.%% $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(nstbTKK $$Ifa$  $If` kd$$Ifl\H $HFp04 lal $If`<6$Ifkd$$Ifl\H $HFp (04 lalp(2,$Ifikd$$Ifl$$  04 lalp V$IfYkd$$Ifl$$04 lal($If  $If` \kd4$$Ifl4$$04 lalf4)*<=Q%&*+/0459:`aefjkoptuɥʥΥϥӥԥإ٥ݥޥ !%&*+/0NOSTXY]^bc¦Ʀh(5CJ\ h(CJ jh(CJ\()<NOuoo$If  $If` kd$$IflF $ 0    4 lalOPQǤڤ}}}wnnnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF $ 0    4 lal %*/49vmmmm $$Ifa$ h$If~kd?$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal9:`ejotvmmmm $$Ifa$ h$If~kd$$Iflr^$FFF4 laltuE;222 $$Ifa$ h$IfkdY$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2ɥΥӥإݥwm h$If~kdZ$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$ݥޥE;222 $$Ifa$ h$Ifkd$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2 %*/wm h$If~kd$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$/0NSX]E;222 $$Ifa$ h$Ifkdo$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2]bcwm h$If~kdp$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$Ʀ˦ЦE;222 $$Ifa$ h$Ifkd$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2ƦǦ˦̦ЦѦզ֦  67;<@AEFJKdeijnostxyŧ LMNO`a}~'(./:;EFRS\]hiuv h(CJh(5CJ\ h(CJ jh(CJYЦզ֦ wm h$If~kd$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$  6;@EE;222 $$Ifa$ h$Ifkd$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2EJKdinsxwm h$If~kd$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$xyE3** $$Ifa$ hh$If^h`kd$$Iflr^$FFF 24 lalp2ŧƧǧwuuukee$If V$If~kd$$Iflr^$FFF4 lal $$Ifa$ KyB8 V$If7kdi$$Ifl4$$64 lalf4$Ifkd$$IflF $ j 6    4 lalpKLMN`}  $If` 7kd$$Ifl4$$64 lalf4$If4kd$$Ifl$$64 lalȨɨʨ˨;Zkd$$IflFx$x  6    4 lal$If  $If` Zkdh$$IflFx$x  6    4 lal˨̨zt@6  $If` 4kd)$$Ifl$$64 lal$IfCkd$$Ifl$$  64 lalp V$If7kdb$$Ifl4$$64 lalf4&'.:EQ  $If` mkdz$$Ifl\2 4$2 T` 64 lal$IfQR\hu$If  $If` mkd $$Ifl\2 4$2 T` 64 lal˫ i pX @@@Jmkd$$Ifl\2 4$2 T` 64 lalv  ժ֪˫̫ ijPְdefWgòIJŲڦ h(0Jjh(U h(6] h(\ h(6 h(0J>*j3h(Ujh(U h(H*jh(0JU h(5h( h(CJ?e?qݳɴ}~ɷ&`#$$a$ =>?@qrݳ޳ɴʴ}~ķŷǷȷɷ˷̷ʼ⑋h(0JmHnHu h(0Jjh(0JUh(0JCJmHnHuh(0JCJjh(0JCJU h(CJjhGUhG h(6 h(\jh(0JUh( h(0Jjh(Uj h(U2ɷʷ˷׷طٷ  CDxyz{|}׸ظٸڸ۸$a$&`#$h]h̷ҷӷշַ׷ٷ    78>?ABCDklrsvwx{|}׸ظٸڸ۸ܸϺϺϺᴫ᧟ᒊjh(UjcI? h(CJUVjh(UhGh(6CJ] h(CJh(0JCJmHnHuh(0JCJjh(0JCJU h(CJh(h(0JmHnHujh(0JU h(0J1 h(5h(jh(Ujh(UjI? h(CJUV pX @@@JA 0/ =!"#$% P0  + 0/ =!"#$% < 00P/ =!"#$% Dp90P/ =!"#$% Dp(/ =!"#$% (/ =!"#$% / 0/ =!"#$% 90P@/ =!"#$% Dp@/ 0/ =!"#$% 90PS/ =!"#$% DpS/ 0/ =!"#$% 90Pd/ =!"#$% Dpd/ 0/ =!"#$% 90Py/ =!"#$% Dpy(/ =!"#$% (/ =!"#$% +/ =!"#$%0 A 0/ =!"#$% P0 "R+ 0/ =!"#$% (/ =!"#$% A 0/ =!"#$% P0 DE+ 0/ =!"#$% (/ =!"#$% A 0/ =!"#$% P0 CUA 0/ =!"#$% P0 +{5/ =!"#$%0 A 0/ =!"#$% P0 + 0/ =!"#$% + 0/ =!"#$% A 0/ =!"#$% P0 st+ 0/ =!"#$% + 0/ =!"#$% A 0/ =!"#$% P0 ./&P/ =!"#$%0 2&P0= /!"#$%0 /&P/ =!"#$%0 ,&P/ =!"#$% ,&P/ =!"#$% ,&P/ =!"#$% E 0&P/ =!"#$% P0 / 0&P/ =!"#$% + 0/ =!"#$`%` + 0/ =!"@#$% ,&P/ =!"#$% ,&P/ =!"#$% `!2F\2O'?ʭ?(mBZq;xZTU?̾ummwR按AC(YffndBH!R  FH^woP+s{>sA(d6 ̃>9)0UB>dy)!5=l /=*Oǿ yR t6 eE_f9P˥A sB)vE>-fNn7LVIw| Q?39"2م >EW !/3)^b/[}f_c@QF|-澸Xĺڗa8]%!Ɋ$cnf1hǡJ%Ÿ ']#n/i#}- xn~ԟb3&L+eL+FHV$Yd:j3[$E}dAIȢȘ(_ c '2}{پF-hwcGl,xB6[`> hꠝ:2g;;xVxR?[ S&˻BAeI hX~POȧO”˧ d.YK.*)qBf Y&,ӧ#di,MܒFJŸgs40|uXe8l z{skS5Lk]` 3R>Ou+yWSXi`B>Jd@21D#3 VƚIzK\D v?\+3~Nj8DsEsNGċzF$=Yn=xffƔ~S%G#GyVxÒʣ)|gnѻe3] kҷɫVٲ)%ޥ;T8<yߙF7)55yf?ՔOj0Ky_ECTԛ҉+vC=U@<11s*5pX=ckiM.$v8p&_<+3~)g8NDhmگ$\ݽ @/-=]*=E_CPQzX?}\ N<8h1<4 GjaX3d|%kVJ%^]zw-h8pݾ9J 0l`J{3mglQs{ VAz~lٸ,VBlr3m ֈ}׽II}i$8Y3Omd>Uli L4Nd;9OȜ'dj'"7VIdm ?eEEYї=[Z(frMb01atvw!tsΥa nFy zZ}ِ%zA4f\30#_* 3zm܁91G̘s0CŐ| U-f/!? y핋!UB~M ʒzU^5,&4ׁT1IwQ{ɤ{Ĥ{<}1W \/[>֫:uEF/6h`!K@Ց%OXdhX(D9xݘOkAߛMRZ%R(,h`NPx`ޤTxoEC| [P8v&ْHC7Lv7o޿,B1ο:歋j ! a<3dr3xX sR>w FCb- , .5Qq1iM7b{|nF:TAYRLJ3:#F i&-hcH٠Y6p r`װX*Q.3͔3/{UUlbybyb1b"j 볧c/'F TkEKQ ߞ>ĢBChЬBBLLDD&fsGi!6`vyLl˜!cקV^ +"TSFjXy'}bagosk$>S|cY3F{# &|Z[QޒsY^ Kߓg<~1| }UgO%}YyOpi%LHS}P,aM$S*DEyϳ_L·K?'qI%M37[ehlȬ#f̑1-n ?tVppnG앱yd.vn0 x^j#fjX3Lf*"R? xޛ9{q|hbϢ=rڧ_7RF7{s~;}sۙV䄬$$If!vh555L#v#vL:V l4 %%%0++,55L/ / 4f4p%%%$$If!vh5555#v:V l4 (%%%%0++,5L5/ 4f4p(%%%%$$If!vh5555#v:V l0541$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l (%%%%0x!,5 5b5/ / 4p(%%%%$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b5/ 4$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b54$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v:V l0x!,5 5b541$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l (%%%%0,56 5p5/ / 4p(%%%%$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p5/ 4$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54$$If!vh56 5p5p5#v6 #vp#v:V l0,56 5p54#$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l (0,5 5p554p($$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l0,5 5p554$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l 0,555p4p$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l (0,5504p($$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh5505050#v#v0:V l0,5504$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l 0,555p4pT$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh555p#v#v#vp:V l0,555p4T$$If!vh5 5 5h #v #vh :V l 0,5 5h 4p$$If!vh5 5 5h #v #vh :V l0,5 5h 4$$If!vh5 5 5h #v #vh :V l0,5 5h 4$$If!vh5 5 5h #v #vh :V l0,5 5h 4$$If!vh5 5 5h #v #vh :V l0,5 5h 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l 0,5 5 4p$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l0,5 5 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l0,5 5 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l0,5 5 4$$If!vh55 5 5 #v#v :V l4 (0+,55 4f4p(x$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l4 F0+,,,554f4pF=kdv4$$Ifl4֞T TTT!  F04 laf4pF$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh55 5 5 #v#v :V l4 (0+,55 4f4p(f$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l4 F0+554f4pF=kdC<$$Ifl4֞T TTT!  F04 laf4pF$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554$$If!vh5555555#v#v:V l0,554`$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l (0,5 55F5/ /  / / 4ap($$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / /  / 4af$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l (0,,5 55F5/ /  / / 4ap($$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / / 4a$$If!vh5 55F5#v #v#vF#v:V l0,5 55F5/ / /  / 4a$$If!vh5P5 5 #vP#v :V l4 0+,5P5 4f4pl$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l4 F0+,5P584f4pF=kdM$$Ifl4֞ T4 P888888 F04 laf4pF$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P5 5 #vP#v :V l4 0+,5P5 4f4pl$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l4 F0+,5P584f4pF=kdAU$$Ifl4֞ T4 P888888 F04 laf4pF$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P584$$If!vh5P585858585858#vP#v8:V l0,5P5840$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l4 20+,554f4p2$$If!v h555555555 #v :V l4 Z0+, 5 4f4pZkd ]$$Ifl4 lD |T,"  Z0$$$$4 laf4pZ$$If!v h555555555 #v :V l0, 5 4$$If!v h555555555 #v :V l0, 5 4$$If!v h555555555 #v :V l0, 5 4$$Ifl!vh5 5p5#v #vp#v:V l 0,,5 5p54alp$$Ifl!vh5 5p5#v #vp#v:V l0,5 5p54al$$Ifl!vh5 5p5#v #vp#v:V l0,5 5p54al$$Ifl!vh5 5p5#v #vp#v:V l0,5 5p54al$$Ifl!vh5 5p5#v #vp#v:V l0,5 5p54alA$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l 20,5 5T5544p2$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l0,5 5T5544$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l0,5 5T5544$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l0,5 5T5544$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l0,5 5T5544$$If!vh5 5T5T554#v #vT#v#v4:V l0,5 5T5544O$$If!vh55b555#v#vb#v#v#v:V l 20,55b5554p2$$If!vh55b555#v#vb#v#v#v:V l0,55b5554$$If!vh55b555#v#vb#v#v#v:V l0,55b5554$$If!vh5555#v:V l (054p($$If!vh5555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh5555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh5555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh5555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh55555#v:V l 2054p2$$If!vh55555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh55555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh55555#v:V l0,54$$If!vh55555#v:V l0,54#$$If!vh5f5T5j5 #vf#vT#vj#v :V l4 (0$5f5T5j5 4f4p(_$$If!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v:V l4 <0$5 5554f4p<kdw$$Ifl4ֈN l$  <0$4 laf4p<$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554_$$If!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v:V l4 <0$5 5554f4p<kd~$$Ifl4ֈN l$  <0$4 laf4p<$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh5f5T55555#vf#vT#v#v#v:V l0$5f5T5554$$If!vh555#v#v:V l4 0554f4p$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l4  (05 54f4p($$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l4  (05 54f4p($$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054O$$If!vh5U555\ 5 #vU#v#v#v\ #v :V l4 20 '5U555\ 5 4f4p2$$If!vh55*55*555*5n#v#v*#v#v*#v#v*#vn:V l4  P0 '55*55*55*5n4f4pPkd$$Ifl4ִHz(#&***n  P0 '    4 laf4pP2$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 n#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v *#v n:V l0 '5U555*55*55 *5 n4kdL$$Ifl  Hz(#&U***n0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl  H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl  H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd:$$Ifl  H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl  H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl  H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la $$If!vh55*55*555*5v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v*#vv:V l40 ',55*55*555*5v4f4$$If!vh55*55*555*5v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v*#vv:V l4  P0 '55*55*555*5v4f4pPkdX$$Ifl4ִH~(#&***v  P0 '    4 laf4pP@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kdZ$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kd$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la@$$If!v h5U555*55*555 *5 v#vU#v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v *#v v:V l0 '5U555*55*555 *5 v4kdV$$Ifl ~ H~(#&U***v0 '((((4 la $$If!vh55*55*555*5v#v#v*#v#v*#v#v#v*#vv:V l40 ',55*55*555*5v4f4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l (0,5 554p($$If!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l0,5 554$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l0,5 554Dd !J  C A? "23pb`!pb@c@S3xXOHQjDH Pdъ/ةCSB/A(<R'C !;txRP@H&캫oyVkݭLא qűC xU)C?qcBĭ>k2L"IwOO(a п>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  J   &      '             ! " # $ % 4 3 ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 H 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Root Entry% F0PV Data  WordDocument$(ObjectPool'V0PV_1061809666 !FVVOle PRINT PCompObjb  !#$%&),-.012356789:;=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMO !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89qOh+'0@H`t David Stammanx Amy PieperaMicrosoft Excel@ @AV;;$ #    ''  Arial;--"Systemn-'-  "--   !! "---'--- - $B B  "----'--- B     B ##B ``B B ---'---   "-  B B ---'---  "-  ##``B xxB B ---'---  !!---'--- ` ---'--- ` _2- "-  ++Z "- ++ - "- $---'--- ` + $+H++---'--- ` Z  $ = Z ws Z =---'--- ` - "-  ---'--- ` + H---'--- `    s ---'--- ` ---'--- ` ---'--- ---'--- ---'---    2 80&& 2 85&& 2 90&& 2 795&& 2 tm100&&&---'--- ---'---   2 z1998&&&& 2 1999&&&& 2 D 2000&&&&---'---  "--    ---'---   ---'---   "-   E  - "-$      2 U Attendance.&&&&&#&---'---   ---'---   "-U   UE U - "-j @  2 3U TAAS Pass+....&##---'---   ---'--- ---'--- --'  '  'ObjInfo Workbook X$SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8, A@\p Amy Pieper Ba= =t"<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)                + ) , *  `Chart1Sheet18ZR3  @@  ! Attendance TAAS Pass   A@MdWendy?XX",HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6.\ ƣQp1 Pf0BT H|DsE 15 eV+.d҈Dr6KR9k)JD2 )\z]Mtٽ r7URW¥ӪD*LFsujUN}JV1 1TqnMZ7n738gpE3(qܲIXm^sNh4{lݛeάClUƷ̈3e'o C1d:~ViӇ;v}ՂsHJ!cJ~^'q AשYJHY 8t!s iGtڇ0)& R _YxȺ9\cաAti  at Az * ^de0Ճ X"GP5wC?kQHZ9iJ*eM`| d)JyN)E-6Yw#t)^7wB[z7*, BpmI>Eifpn)* ,ڎ'e5 `jmH@ËJ`k"g'M+WdIqn|/[ \H)KѻAfBr ^р 9_W߻6Xi2'R2_ʆNzb2DXql9J|g4цYFd VG}yr@"dXX??3` #Q ` #Q ? 3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA  3OGtW 3 b#M43*T@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  3O % Mp73OQ44444e8@8@<@<@@@@@e,X@fffffV@V@̬T@yX@,X@e>  A@  dMbP?_*+%"??U8@<@@@ @V@@ @'@@8@<@@@ @@W@ @T@R@@T@ld&**&*8 (  p  6NMM?P-]`~  A@"??3` #Q` #Q` #Q@3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O&Q4FA"o N 3OCN  3 b#M43*T@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  U3O U% Mp73OQ4444% N{ M3O&Q <Type 1 and 2 Charter Schools'44eee xp  6NMM? `0]`~  A@"??3` #Q` #Q ` #Q >3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA_ 3OB8 $ 3 b#M43*Q@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  ~3O ~% Mp73OQ4444% uMM3O& Q 0Type 3 Charter Schools'44eee >@7 ՜.+,0 PX|  Academic Information Manage Sheet1Chart1  WorksheetsCharts !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89q_1061809692!FVVOle  PRINT ( CompObjb:& _    ( ''  Arialn--"Systemn-'- ( "--   !! "---'--- ( - $     "----'--- !  >       _ _         ---'--- (  > "-       ---'--- ( "-          _ _           3  3ii33  ---'---  !!---'--- = ---'--- : _2- "-Z  W "-^ ^W Z- "- $=ZwZ=---'--- :  $}+}---'--- : W  $W t W : W ---'--- : ^- "-  {A---'--- :  +---'--- : ^W  {t A: ---'--- : ---'--- = ---'--- ( ---'--- ( ---'--- (    2 70)) 2 75)) 2 r80)) 2 385)) 2 90)) 2 95)) 2 un100)))---'--- ( ---'--- (   2 [s1998)))) 2 [1999)))) 2 [ 2000))))---'--- ( "--   > ---'---  ? ---'---  ? "-$X   $ $ - "-$  $ ; $  2  Attendance1)))))%)---'---  ? ---'---  ? "-X     - "- |  2 o TAAS Pass-1111)%%---'---  ? ---'--- ( ---'--- ( --' (  '  'ObjInfoWorkbook5 X$SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8,Oh+'0@H`t David Stammanx Amy PieperaMicrosoft Excel@ @d;՜.+,0 PX|  Academic Information Manage A@\p Amy Pieper Ba="0 = "<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)                + ) , *  `Chart2Sheet18ZR3  @@  ! Attendance TAAS Pass   A@MdWendy?XX",HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6.\ ƣQp1 Pf0BT H|DsE 15 eV+.d҈Dr6KR9k)JD2 )\z]Mtٽ r7URW¥ӪD*LFsujUN}JV1 1TqnMZ7n738gpE3(qܲIXm^sNh4{lݛeάClUƷ̈3e'o C1d:~ViӇ;v}ՂsHJ!cJ~^'q AשYJHY 8t!s iGtڇ0)& R _YxȺ9\cաAti  at Az * ^de0Ճ X"GP5wC?kQHZ9iJ*eM`| d)JyN)E-6Yw#t)^7wB[z7*, BpmI>Eifpn)* ,ڎ'e5 `jmH@ËJ`k"g'M+WdIqn|/[ \H)KѻAfBr ^р 9_W߻6Xi2'R2_ʆNzb2DXql9J|g4цYFd VG}yr@"dXX??3` #Q ` #Q 迪@3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA4.  3OHn 3 b#M43*Q@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  3O % Mp73OQ44444e8@8@<@<@@@@@efffffFX@@T@fffffW@R@W@@T@e>  A@  dMbP?_*+%"??U8@<@@@ @V@@ @'@@8@<@@@ @@W@ @T@R@@T@ld&**&*8 (  p  6NMM?P-]`0 ~  A@"0 ??3` #Q` #Q` #Q@3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O&Q4FA"o N 3OCN  3 b#M43*T@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  U3O U% Mp73OQ4444% N{ M3O&Q <Type 1 and 2 Charter Schools'44eee xp  6NMM? `0]` ~  A@" ??3` #Q` #Q ` #Q >3d23 M NM4 3Q:  AttendanceQ ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  TAAS PassQ ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA_ 3OB8 $ 3 b#M43*Q@Y@@#M! M4523   43"  ~3O ~% Mp73OQ4444% uMM3O& Q 0Type 3 Charter Schools'44eee >@7 Sheet1Chart2  WorksheetsCharts FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89qOh+'0@H`t  [BQF[қP3:ˣ(ڱ1x[x8NX <3^DP ^^M&Sw| \*v )T+J:E5 V4X`Hx([PCKb ˂_/ EL[9Ύ2qgf#rq,WKW0j4V]5Z.@ Sxjc@, _,|*Vl= c X]8zpnZC=sϰ 9^q.Z&鴵G(""4XP7RHVR4 ESh_/P\tQM B]XpՅ"B7"X>޹3I4 ao= tbл'$eA> E1AB /e1#\} wO? 0Qo7.KeXoQHlѰ9z#(@h%p81=t?|(&`=&;U;5y$c 7$2~rT"}TfݖƶAbEWX^a)SM=:UΊ;^oX( Z| 'g! ] ouqӦ{zf͍5iҰLbvynW qILo[UIV]K U'+`'I'Vƒ u?N>ԋ(,󱄛ߴ,իW<A$GL1 ;ب&Rbܼ%4r],3d1JV㼍bvJ$F ;R|#4nѢxkq|oT8_9|l{'+ VJ-kfq.7dz_g.̣(8Mr̽ݴAGf uY޽_ZaQ[S̭)(^ػr8yKY{Mjr,J&ޜfm)_ )A7b>~XsgmfO~yӿUVW:Ǩެ $$If!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l4 (0"+,5 554f4p($$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v:V l4 F0"+55554f4pF=kd4$$Ifl4֞ t"  F0"4 laf4pF$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v:V l0"5 5554$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v:V l0"5 5554$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v:V l0"5 5554$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v:V l0"5 5554T$$If!vh555D5 5 #v#vD#v #v :V l4  6`20#55C5 5 4f4p2$$If!v h5t 55555555 #vt #v#v#v#v :V l4  6`Z0#5v 555 4f4pZkd$$Ifl4   }#v   6`Z0#$$$$4 laf4pZ$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4DkdC$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4Dkd$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4Dkd$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4Dkd]$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4Dkd$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!v h555D555555 5 5 #v#vD#v#v#v #v :V l 6`0#55C555 4Dkd$$Ifl   }#C 6`0#,,,,4 la$$If!vh5@ 5 5 #v@ #v :V l4 05@ 5 4f4py$$If!vh55555555#v#v:V l P0554pPskdb$$Iflִ4 |$t  P0    4 lapP$$If!vh55555555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555555#v#v:V l0554-$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l 2055P54p2$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l055P54-$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l 20"55P54p2$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54$$If!vh55P555#v#vP#v:V l0"55P54G$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l (%%%%06,5:555/ / 4ap(%%%%$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:555/ 4a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a$$If!vh5:555#v:#v#v#v:V l06,5:5554a&$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l (%%%%06,5>5554p(%%%%$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>5554$$If!vh5>555#v>#v#v#v:V l06,5>55549$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l (%%%%06,5 55/ / 4alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l06,5 55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l06,5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l06,5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l06,5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l06,5 554als$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l 2%%%%%0(#6,55555P/ / 4ap2%%%%%$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P/ 4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a$$If!vh55555P#v#v#v#v#vP:V l0(#6,55555P4a&$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l (%%%%06,5 5D/ / 4p(%%%%$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D/ 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$Ifl!vh5 5x #v #vx :V l4 %%06+,5 5x 4alf4p%%$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l4 %%%06+5 554alf4p%%%$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l065 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l065 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l065 554aln$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l 2%%%%%0"6,5(55055/ / 4p2%%%%%$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(55055/ 4$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(550554$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(550554$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(550554$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(550554$$If!vh5(55055#v(#v#v0#v#v:V l0"6,5(550554$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l %%%0$6,5D 5p/ / 4p%%%$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p/ 4$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p4$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p4$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p4$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p4$$If!vh5D 5p5p#vD #vp:V l0$6,5D 5p4n$$If!vh5t5T555#vt#vT#v#v#v:V l 2%%%%%0f!6,5t5T555/ / 4p2%%%%%$$If!vh5t5T555#vt#vT#v#v#v:V l0f!6,5t5T555/ 4$$If!vh5t5T555#vt#vT#v#v#v:V l0f!6,5t5T5554$$If!vh5t5T555#vt#vT#v#v#v:V l0f!6,5t5T5554$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l %%%0x!6,55C4p%%%$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l0x!6,55C4$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l0x!6,55C4$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l0x!6,55C4$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l0x!6,55C4$$If!vh55C5C#v#vC:V l0x!6,55C4$$If!vh5p5p55#vp#v:V l4 (%%%%0t"+,5p54af4p(%%%%$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l4 F%%%%%%0t"+5p5855854af4pF%%%%%%=kdqK$$Ifl4֞L ,d.! p8888 F%%%%%%0t"4 laf4pF%%%%%%$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854a$$If!vh5p5858585585#vp#v8#v#v8#v:V l0t",5p5855854aO$$If!vh5p5$ 5p5(#vp#v$ #vp#v(:V l4 (%%%%0+,5p5$ 5p5(/ / 4af4p(%%%%$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l4 F%%%%%%%0+,5p5585/ / 4af4pF%%%%%%%=kd!W$$Ifl4֞LN Px! p888 F%%%%%%%04 laf4pF%%%%%%%$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p555858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ / 4aH$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l4 2%%%%%0#6+,5D5554af4p2%%%%% $$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l4 Z%%%%%%%%0#6+5D55555555 4af4pZ%%%%%%%%kdc$$Ifl4 O6 oV" D Z%%%%%%%%0#6$$$$4 laf4pZ%%%%%%%%8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5D55555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5D55555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5D55555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5D55555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5D55555555 4a&$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l (%%%%06,5 5D/ / 4p(%%%%$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D/ 4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4$$If!vh5 5D5D5D#v #vD:V l06,5 5D4;$$If!vh5p5$ 5p5(#vp#v$ #vp#v(:V l4 (%%%%0+5p5$ 5p5(/ 4af4p(%%%%$$If!vh5p5585858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l4 F%%%%%%%0+5p5585/ / 4af4pF%%%%%%%=kds$$Ifl4֞L Px! p8888 F%%%%%%%04 laf4pF%%%%%%%$$If!vh5p5585858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p5585/ 4a$$If!vh5p5585858585#vp#v#v8#v:V l0,5p55854a1$$If!vh5 5p55#v #vp#v#v:V l4 (%%%%06+,5 5p554f4p(%%%%$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l4 F%%%%%%%06+5 585554f4pF%%%%%%%@kdz$$Ifl4֞$ \ [B,"  888 F%%%%%%%064 laf4pF%%%%%%%$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554$$If!vh5 585858555#v #v8#v#v#v:V l06,5 585554e$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l 2%%%%%0#6,5r555/ / 4ap2%%%%%$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r555/ 4a$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r5554a$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r5554a$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r5554a$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r5554a$$If!vh5r5555#vr#v#v#v:V l0#6,5r5554ay$$If!vh5(5555#v(#v#v#v#v:V l4 2%%%%%0#6+,5(5555/ / 4f4p2%%%%%$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l4 Z%%%%%%%%%0#6+, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O/ 4f4pZ%%%%%%%%%kdG$$Ifl4 s &i@(# (PcC>O Z%%%%%%%%%0#6$$$$4 laf4pZ%%%%%%%%%A$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l0#6, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O/ 43$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l0#6, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O43$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l0#6, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O43$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l0#6, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O43$$If!v h5(55P5c5C55>55 O#v(#v#vP#vc#vC#v#v>#v#v O:V l0#6, 5(55P5c5C55>55 O4]$$If!vh5z5555#vz#v#v:V l4 2%%%%%0#6+,5z55/ / 4f4p2%%%%%$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l4 Z%%%%%%%%%0#6+5z55555555 / 4f4pZ%%%%%%%%%kd$$Ifl4  .# z Z%%%%%%%%%0#6$$$$4 laf4pZ%%%%%%%%%A$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5z55555555 / 43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5z55555555 43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5z55555555 43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5z55555555 43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0#6, 5z55555555 4T$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l4 2%%%%%0m%6+,55554af4p2%%%%% $$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l4 Z%%%%%%%%%0m%6+555555555 4af4pZ%%%%%%%%%kdҮ$$Ifl4 g  u\ $  Z%%%%%%%%%0m%6$$$$4 laf4pZ%%%%%%%%%8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0m%6, 555555555 4aW$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l 20#6,5$ 55554ap2$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0#6,5$ 55554a$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0#6,5$ 55554a$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~#6,5$ 55554a$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0#6,5$ 55554a$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0#6,5$ 55554a$$If!vh5$ 5555#v$ #v#v#v#v:V l0#6,5$ 55554a<$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l4 20$%6+,554af4p2$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l4p Z0$%6+, 555555555 4af4pZkd5$$Ifl4p |c , #  Z0$%6$$$$4 laf4pZ8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4a8$$If!v h555555555 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l0$%6, 555555555 4aC$$If!vh5z5555#vz#v:V l4 206+,5z5,55,4f4p2%$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l4 Z06+,,,,, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X4f4pZkd$$Ifl4  .N# zXXBXX Z06$$$$4 laf4pZ3$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X43$$If!v h5z55555555 #vz#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V l06, 5z55X55X5B5X55 X4$$If5!vh555#v#v:V l  t0,554a5p$$If5!vh555#v#v:V l t0554a5$$If5!vh555#v#v:V l t0554a5$$If5!vh555#v#v:V l t0554a5$$If5!vh555#v#v:V l t0554a5D$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l (0,5T55p5/ / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ / / 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ / / 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ / / / 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p54al$$Ifl!vh5T55p5#vT#v#vp#v:V l0,5T55p5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V lj 0,55H4alp$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V l0,55H4al$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V l0,55H4al$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V l0,55H4al$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V l0,55H4al$$Ifl!vh55H#v#vH:V l0,55H4al$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l (0!,5@ 554alp($$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l0!,5@ 554al$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l0!,5@ 554al$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l0!,5@ 554al$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l0!,5@ 554al$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l0!,5@ 554al$$Ifl!vh5H5p5#vH#vp#v:V l4 0#+,5H5p54alf4p=$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l4 20#+5H5854alf4p2$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh5H5858585#vH#v8#v:V l0#,5H5854al$$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v #v :V l4 0+,55 5 4alf4pY$$Ifl!vh555F55#v#v#vF#v#v:V l4 20+555F554alf4p2$$Ifl!vh555F55#v#v#vF#v#v:V l0555F554al$$Ifl!vh555F55#v#v#vF#v#v:V l0555F554al$$Ifl!vh555F55#v#v#vF#v#v:V l0555F554al$$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l4 0+,554alf4p$$Ifl!vh55~ 5~ #v#v~ :V l4 0+55~ 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh55~ 5~ #v#v~ :V l0,55~ 4al$$Ifl!vh55~ 5~ #v#v~ :V l0,55~ 4al$$Ifl!vh55~ 5~ #v#v~ :V l0,55~ 4al6$$Ifl!vh5m5C 5 5 #vm#vC #v #v :V l4 (06+,55c 5 5V 4alf4p($$Ifl!vh5m55\5 555L#vm#v#v\#v #v#v#vL:V l4 F06+555515554alf4pF@kd`$$Ifl4֞mT [," 1 F064 lalf4pF $$Ifl!vh5m55\5 555L#vm#v#v\#v #v#v#vL:V l06,555515554al $$Ifl!vh5m55\5 555L#vm#v#v\#v #v#v#vL:V l06,555515554al $$Ifl!vh5m55\5 555L#vm#v#v\#v #v#v#vL:V l06,555515554al$$Ifl!vh5 5 #v #v :V l4 0+,5 5 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l4 0+5 554alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l0,5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l0,5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l0,5 554al6$$Ifl!vh55V 5x 5p #v#vV #vx #vp :V l4 (06+,55V 5x 5p 4alf4p($$Ifl!vh55D55l5 5`5#v#vD#v#vl#v #v`#v:V l4 F06+55D55l5 5`54alf4pF@kd&$$Ifl4֞2 D," Dl ` F064 lalf4pF $$Ifl!vh55D55l5 5`5#v#vD#v#vl#v #v`#v:V l06,55D55l5 5`54al $$Ifl!vh55D55l5 5`5#v#vD#v#vl#v #v`#v:V l06,55D55l5 5`54al $$Ifl!vh55D55l5 5`5#v#vD#v#vl#v #v`#v:V l06,55D55l5 5`54al($$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l (0,555$ 5(4alp($$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4al$$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4al$$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4al$$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4al$$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4al$$Ifl!vh555$ 5(#v#v#v$ #v(:V l0,555$ 5(4ald$$Ifl!vh5b55&5"5#vb#v#v&#v"#v:V l4 20++,5b55&5"54alf4p2$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l4 P0++5b585585554alf4pPykd5$$Ifl4ִb x# b88  P0    4 lalf4pP$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554al$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554al$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554al$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554al$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554al$$Ifl!vh5b585585555#vb#v8#v#v8#v#v#v:V l0,5b585585554alV$$Ifl!vh5T5p555#vT#vp#v#v:V l4 20#++,5T5p554alf4p2$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l4 P0#++,5T58558554alf4pPykd6A$$Ifl4ִT # T8888  P0#    4 lalf4pP$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al$$Ifl!vh5T58585855855#vT#v8#v#v8#v#v:V l0#,5T58558554al($$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l (0,5N 555p4alp($$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5 5#v #v:V l4 0+,5 54alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l4 0+5 55b4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l05 55b4al$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l05 55b4al$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l05 55b4al$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l05 55b4al$$Ifl!vh5 55b#v #v#vb:V l05 55b4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 #v #v :V l4 0+,5 5 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l4 0+5 554alf4p$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 554al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 554al($$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l (0,5N 555p4alp($$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al$$Ifl!vh5N 555p#vN #v#v#vp:V l0,5N 555p4al($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l (0,5 5554alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l0,5 5554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l0,5 5554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l0,5 5554al($$Ifl!vh5~ 585~ 5 #v~ #v8#v~ #v :V l (0!,5~ 585~ 5 4alp($$Ifl!vh5~ 585~ 5 #v~ #v8#v~ #v :V l0!,5~ 585~ 5 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 585~ 5 #v~ #v8#v~ #v :V l0!,5~ 585~ 5 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 585~ 5 #v~ #v8#v~ #v :V l0!,5~ 585~ 5 4al$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l %%%065p5@ 4alp%%%T$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5p5@ 5@ #vp#v@ :V l065p5@ 4alTF$$Ifl!vh5 55T5T5!#v #v#vT#v!:V l 2%%%%%0,5 55T5!4alp2%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 55T5T5!#v #v#vT#v!:V l05 55T5!4al$$Ifl!vh5 55T5T5!#v #v#vT#v!:V l05 55T5!4al$$Ifl!vh5 55T5T5!#v #v#vT#v!:V l05 55T5!4al$$Ifl!vh5 55T5T5!#v #v#vT#v!:V l05 55T5!4al($$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l (%%%%0,555F54alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al+$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l4 (%%%%0,555F54alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al$$Ifl!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l0555F54al+$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l4 (%%%%0!,5x5554alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al$$Ifl!vh5x555#vx#v#v#v:V l0!5x5554al($$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l (%%%%0,55554alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554al$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554alr$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l <%%%%%%0!,555855F4alp<%%%%%%kdz$$Iflֈ :z!8F <%%%%%%0!4 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l0!555855F4al$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l0!555855F4al$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l0!555855F4al$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l0!555855F4al$$Ifl!vh5558555F#v#v#v8#v#vF:V l0!555855F4al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l (%%%%0!,5 554alp(%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l0!5 554al$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l0!5 554ala$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l4 <%%%%%%05 55G54alp<%%%%%%kd$$Ifl4ֈ U.! G <%%%%%%04 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54ala$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l4 <%%%%%%05 55G54alp<%%%%%%kd&$$Ifl4ֈ U.! G <%%%%%%04 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54al$$Ifl!vh5 555G55#v #v#vG#v:V l05 55G54ald$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l <%%%%%%0,5 55.54alp<%%%%%%kdG$$Iflֈ U.! . <%%%%%%04 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l05 55.54alg$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l4 <%%%%%%0!,5 55.54alp<%%%%%%kd"g$$Ifl4ֈ U.! . <%%%%%%0!4 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54al$$Ifl!vh5 5555.5#v #v#v.#v:V l0!5 55.54alr$$Ifl!vh55585T5T5#v#v#v8#vT#v:V l <%%%%%%0t",55585T54alp<%%%%%%kdH$$Iflֈ 4t"8TT <%%%%%%0t"4 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh55585T5T5#v#v#v8#vT#v:V l0t",55585T54al$$Ifl!vh55585T5T5#v#v#v8#vT#v:V l0t",55585T54al$$Ifl!vh55585T5T5#v#v#v8#vT#v:V l0t",55585T54al$$Ifl!vh55585T5T5#v#v#v8#vT#v:V l0t",55585T54alr$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l <%%%%%%0,5~ 55554alp<%%%%%%kdU$$Iflֈ~ \ :!~  <%%%%%%04 lalp<%%%%%%$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$Ifl!vh5~ 55555#v~ #v#v#v#v:V l05~ 55554al$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l4> <0$,5 555F55/ 4f4p<kd$$Ifl4>ֈ :&lJ6$ F <0$4 laf4p<$$If!vh5$#v$:V l4  0$5$/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F55/ 4$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F55/ 4$$If!vh5$#v$:V l4  0$5$/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F55/ 4$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l4> <0$,5 555F554f4p<kd$$Ifl4>ֈ :&lJ6$ F <0$4 laf4p<      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~$$If!vh5$#v$:V l4  0$5$4f4p $$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$,5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554$$If!vh5 555F55#v #v#v#vF#v#v:V l0$5 555F554[$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l 206,5k 5525)54ap2T$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  065"4af4p T$$If!vh5x 55 5R5M#vx #v#v #vR#vM:V l06,5x 55 5R5M4aT$$If!vh5x 55 5R5M#vx #v#v #vR#vM:V l06,5x 55 5R5M4aT$$If!vh5x 55 5R5M#vx #v#v #vR#vM:V l06,5x 55 5R5M4aT$$If!vh5x 55 5R5M#vx #v#v #vR#vM:V l06,5x 55 5R5M4aT$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  065"4af4p T$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  065"4af4p T$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  065"4af4p T$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aT$$If!vh5k 5525)5#vk #v#v2#v)#v:V l06,5k 5525)54aTP$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l (06,5 555/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 555/ /  / 4H$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l (06,5 5$ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 5$ 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 5$ 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l06,5 5$ 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 555#v #v#v#v:V l065 5$ 5/ /  / 4R$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l 206,5}55554p2$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554$$If!vh5 50555#v #v0#v#v#v:V l065}55554D$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l 206,55554p2$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  06,54f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  0654f4p $$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554$$If!vh5Y5555#vY#v#v#v:V l0655554@$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l (06,55Z / /  / 4p($$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / / 4$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / / 4$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / / 4$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / / 4$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / / 4$$If!vh5y5 5 5 #vy#v #v #v :V l0655Z / /  / 40$$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l4 (06,5 55p54f4p($$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l065 55p5/ 4.$$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l (065 55p5/ 4p($$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l065 55p5/ 4$$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l065 55p54$$If!vh5_ 5@55#v_ #v@#v#v:V l065 55p54$$If !vh5 5#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / / /  / 4a f4p{$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l 2065 554/ / / / / 4a p2$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l4 2065 554/ /  / / / 4a f4p2$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l4 2065 554/ /  / / / 4a f4p2$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / / 4a Q$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l 2065 554/ / 4a p2$$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ / 4a $$If !vh5 55554#v #v#v4:V l065 554/ /  / 4a $$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l4 065n 5\/ / / /  / 4f4ph$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / / / / 4p2>$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / / 4>$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / / 4>$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / / 4>$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / / 4>$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l 2065n 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5q5q5q5q#v #vq:V l065n 5/ /  / 4 $$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l4 06,5 54/ / / /  4f4pr$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l 206,5 5/ / / / 4p2$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l065 5/ /  / 4 $$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l4 06,5 5/ / / /  4f4p$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l 206,5 5F55/ / / / / 4p2Z$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l 2065 5F55/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / 4$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / 4$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / 4$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l 2065 5F55/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / 4$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l 2065 5F55/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ / 4$$If!vh5 5F5F55#v #vF#v#v:V l065 5F55/ /  / 4$$If!vh5@ 5X#v@ #vX:V l4, 06,5 54/ / / /  4f4p$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 206,5 5/ / / / / 4p2T$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 2065 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 206,5 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 206,5 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,06,5 5/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 206,5 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / / 4Z$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l, 206,5 5/ / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ / 4$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v#v#v#v:V l,065 5/ /  / 4 $$If!vh5n 5*#vn #v*:V l4 06,5 5/ / / /  4f4p$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l 206,5 5555/ / / / 4p2$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ / 4$$If!vh5n 5555#vn #v#v#v#v:V l065 5555/ /  / 4$$If!vh5` 5#v` #v:V l4 06,5` 5/ / / /  4f4p6$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l 06,5` 5b/ / / / / 4p$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l 065` 5b/ / 4p$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l 065` 5b/ / 4p$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l 065` 5b/ / 4p$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ / 4$$If!vh5` 5b5b#v` #vb:V l065` 5b/ /  / 4$$If!vh5 5x#v #vx:V l4 06,5 5x/ / / /  4f4p<$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 06,5 5/ / / / / 4f4p $$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / 4f4p$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / / 4f4 $$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / 4f4p$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / / 4f4 $$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / 4f4p$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / / 4f4 $$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / 4f4p$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / / 4f4 $$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4 065 5/ / 4f4p$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ / 4f4$$If!vh5 55#v #v:V l4065 5/ /  / 4f4 $$If!vh5n 5#vn #v:V l4 06,5n 5/ / / /  4f4p*$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4 06,5n 5C/ / / / 4f4p$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ / 4f4$$If!vh5n 5C5C#vn #vC:V l4065n 5C/ /  / 4f4O$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l 2%%%%%0!,5 55554p2%%%%%$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l0!,5 55554$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l0!,5 55554$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l0!,5 55554$$If!vh5 5555#v #v#v#v#v:V l0!,5 55554$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l (%%%%0$5 54p(%%%%$$If!vh5$#v$:V l4  %0$5$4f4p %$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5$#v$:V l4  %0$5$4f4p %$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l0$5 54$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l (%%%%06,5 5b5p4p(%%%%$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4$$If!vh5 5b5b5p#v #vb#vp:V l065 5b5p4+$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l 2%%%%%0",,5R 54p2%%%%%$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4f4p %$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4f4p %$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4f4p %$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh555#v:V l %%%0,54p%%%$$If!vh555#v:V l054$$If!vh555#v:V l054$$If!vh555#v:V l054$$If!vh555#v:V l054$$If!vh555#v:V l054 $$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l 2%%%%%0",5R 54p2%%%%%$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4f4p %$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4f4p %$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54$$If!vh5R 5555#vR #v:V l0"5R 54.$$If!vh5;555p#v;#v#v#vp:V l4 (%%%%0+,5;555p4f4p(%%%%$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l4 <%%%%%%0+,5;5585585p4f4p<%%%%%%kd$$Ifl4ֈ~ H ;88p <%%%%%%04 laf4p<%%%%%%$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l05;5585585p4$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l05;5585585p4$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l05;5585585p4$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l05;5585585p4$$If!vh5;5585585p#v;#v#v8#v#v8#vp:V l05;5585585p4%$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l 2%%%%%0",5@ 54ap2%%%%%$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4af4p %$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4af4p %$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5"#v":V l4  %0"5"4af4p %$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l0"5@ 54a*$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l (%%%%06,5 5T554p(%%%%$$If!vh5!#v!:V l4  %065!4f4p %$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l06,5 5T554$$If!vh5!#v!:V l4  %065!4f4p %$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l065 5T554$$If!vh5 5T55#v #vT#v#v:V l06,5 5T554$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l %%%065 5b4p%%%$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4$$If!vh5 5b5b#v #vb:V l065 5b4*$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l4+  t%%%06,5+5_5/ / 4f4p%%%T$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l4 t065+5_5/ 4f4T$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l4 t065+5_54f4T$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l4 t065+5_54f4T$$If!vh5(55 #v(#v#v :V l4 %%%0",5(55 4f4p%%%$$If!vh5(55 #v(#v#v :V l40"5(55 4f4$$If!vh5(55 #v(#v#v :V l40"5(55 4f4$$If!vh5(55 #v(#v#v :V l40"5(55 4f4$$If!vh5(55 #v(#v#v :V l40"5(55 4f4$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l (%%%%06,5E554p(%%%%$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l065E554$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l065E554$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l065E554$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l %%%0O6,5 5B4p%%%$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5(5A5?#v(#vA#v?:V l0O65 5B4$$If!vh5^ 5 #v^ #v :V l4 %%0z6+,5 5 / / 4f4p%%!$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l4 %%%0z6+,5 55/ / 4f4p%%%$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 55/ 4$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554$$If!vh5^ 55#v^ #v#v:V l0z65 554DyK http://ritter.tea.state.tx.usyK >http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/)$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l4 (%%%%0x,5`5/ / 4f4p(%%%%$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`5/ 4f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4$$If!vh5E 555#vE #v:V l40x5`54f4DyK http://ritter.tea.state.tx.usyK >http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ $$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l (%%%%0,5v 5[4p(%%%%$$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l05v 5[4$$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l0,5v 5[4$$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l05v 5[4$$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l05v 5[4$$If!vh525d5d5c#v2#vd#vc:V l05v 5[4DyK http://ritter.tea.state.tx.usyK >http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l4 %%0+,5 54f4p%%$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l4 %%0+55 5$ 4f4p%%$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 4$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 4$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 4$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 4$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 4$$If!vh5 5 5$ #v #v #v$ :V l05 5 5$ 43$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l4 Z%%%%%%%%%0,,, 5 555F55F5855  / / 4a0pZ%%%%%%%%%Tkdw$$IfTl4 w Ae$* FF8  Z%%%%%%%%%0$$$$4 la0pZ%%%%%%%%%TG$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  / 4a0Tkd|$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd;$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd`$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdϋ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd>$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdc$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdҡ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdA$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdf$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdշ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdD$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdi$$IfTl w Ae$*       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd"$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdG$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdl$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd%$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdJ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdo$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd($$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdM$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdr$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd $$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd $$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd+$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdP$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdu$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd"$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd%$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd )$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd.,$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdS/$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdx2$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd5$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd8$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd;$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd ?$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd1B$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdVE$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd{H$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdK$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdN$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdQ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdU$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd4X$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdY[$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd~^$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkda$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdg$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdk$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd7n$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd\q$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdt$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdw$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdz$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd}$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd:$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd_$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdΐ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd=$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdb$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdѦ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd@$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkde$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdԼ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$( $4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdC$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdh$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd!$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdF$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdk$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdI$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdn$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd'$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdL$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdq $$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd*$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdO$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdt!$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd$$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd'$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd*$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd.$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd-1$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdR4$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkdw7$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd:$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd=$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd@$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd D$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0Tkd0G$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdUJ$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T9$$If0!v h5 555F55F5855  #v #v#v#vF#v#vF#v8#v#v :V l0, 5 555F55F5855  4a0TkdzM$$IfTl w Ae$* FF8 0$$$$4 la0T$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F54ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F54ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh555F5#v#v#vF#v:V l6,,555F5/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,5554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,5554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v#v:V l6,555/ 4ah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V l6,5555Xah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V l6,5555Xah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V lq6,5555X/  / ah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V l^6,5555X/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V lU6,5555X/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V l^6,5555X/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5555X#v#v#v#vX:V lg6,5555X/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l6,55555ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l6,55555ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l 6,55555/  / ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lL6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lg6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l^6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lU6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l^6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lg6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l^6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lU6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l^6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lg6,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V l^6,,,55555/ /  ah$$Ifh!vh5o5555 #vo#v#v#v#v :V lU6,,55555/ /  ah$$If!vh555#v#v:V l06554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l06554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l06554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l06554a$$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*5*55 8#v #v*#v#v*#v#v 8:V l Z,5 5*55*55 84alpZakdju$$Ifl X $ ***8 Z$$$$4 lalpZ$$Ifl!vh555*5x#v#v#v*#vx:V l555*5x4al$$Ifl!vh555*5x#v#v#v*#vx:V l555*5x4al$$Ifl!vh555*5x#v#v#v*#vx:V l555*5x4al$$Ifl!vh555#v#v#v:V l 5554alpL$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l5$4alL$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l5$4alL$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l5$4alb$$Ifl!vh55x#v#vx:V l55x4alb$$Ifl!vh55x#v#vx:V l55x4alL$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l5$4al$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al8$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l 20,5H5/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al8$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l 20,5H5/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al8$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l 20,5H5/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al8$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l 20,5H5/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5H5555#vH#v:V l0,5H5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l055/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l055/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l055/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l0,55558/ 4alT$$Ifl!vh5555858#v#v#v#v8:V l 20,55558/ 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l4u0,5$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh555 5#v#v#v #v:V l0,555 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l40,5$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55*5*5*55#v#v*#v#v:V l055*55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55*5*5*55#v#v*#v#v:V l055*55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5585#v#v8#v:V l05585/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5T5 5$ 52 #vT#v #v$ #v2 :V l05T5 5$ 52 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5N 55#v #vN #v#v:V l05 5N 55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 55p5N #v #v#vp#vN :V l05 55p5N / 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v #v :V l05 5 5 / 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5~ 5$ 5$ 5#v~ #v$ #v:V l05~ 5$ 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 5$ 5$ 5#v~ #v$ #v:V l05~ 5$ 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 5$ 5$ 5#v~ #v$ #v:V l05~ 5$ 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 5$ 5$ 5#v~ #v$ #v:V l05~ 5$ 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5~ 5$ 5$ 5#v~ #v$ #v:V l05~ 5$ 5/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l0,5H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH_1061809507 F0V0VOle PRINTL)CompObjf.@D*      )''  Ariala--"Systemn-'-  ) "--   !! "---'---  )- $  "----'---  &b!       ---'---  )&b! "-    ---'---  ) "-   4 4   ---'---  !!---'---  ---'---  _2- "-{  6`6`S "-p `` "-) x`x` "- `` "- ``x "- ``6 {- "- $^{{^---'---  6` $`}6`SC6`---'---  S  $ 6& S p S 6---'---  p- "-  S---'---  ` }C---'---    &  ---'---  )- "-   $ FF ---'---  x`  $`[}C`[---'---     $ h&   h---'---  _2- "-   r "- ss---'---  ` "-  B "- `C`}`C`}---'---   "-  ) r "-  s  &    s& ---'---  _2-  "-   "----'-- -  ` "- B "-`C`}`C`}````---'-- -  x "- ) Z "-x [ x & x  x [& x [ x  ---'-- -  - "-   p---'---   ` }C---'---   6  S&  ---'---   ---'---   ---'---   )---'---   )---'---   )  2 60.00%,,,,F2 70.00%,,,,F2 80.00%,,,,F2 90.00%,,,,F2 wn100.00%,,,,,F---'---   )---'---   )  2 ( ^1998,,,, 2 ( 1999,,,, 2 ( 2000,,,,---'---   ) "- -  'b! ---'--- %c" ---'--- %c" "- <     - "- $   z    2 s PCC1599,---'--- %c" ---'--- %c" "- <     - "- ) z   2  PPC1559,---'--- %c" ---'--- %c" "- <     - "-  $ m z  m  2 _ PCP1595,---'--- %c" ---'--- %c" "- <     _2- "-   y "-   z    z     2  PCC3599,---'---  %c" ---'---  %c" "-  r<   r r _2-  "-  Xy "- r Yz r  r z r Y r Y r    2 K PPC3559,---'-- -  %c" ---'-- -  %c" "- <     - "-  z   2  PCP3595,---'---  %c" ---'---   )---'---   )-- '  ) '  'ObjInfoWorkbook>SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8",   &' !"#$%;)*+,-./0123456789:<=?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~ A@\p Amy Pieper Ba= &=%<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)                + ) , *         `Chart1Sheet18ZR3  @@  $Public CharterPublicPCC1PPC1PCP1PCC3PPC3PCP3T1RmasT3RmasT1MmasT3MmasT1RpassT1MpassT3RpassT3Mpass 2L{  A@MdWendy?XX",HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6.\ ƣQp1 Pf0BT H|DsE 15 eV+.d҈Dr6KR9k)JD2 )\z]Mtٽ r7URW¥ӪD*LFsujUN}JV1 1TqnMZ7n738gpE3(qܲIXm^sNh4{lݛeάClUƷ̈3e'o C1d:~ViӇ;v}ՂsHJ!cJ~^'q AשYJHY 8t!s iGtڇ0)& R _YxȺ9\cաAti  at Az * ^de0Ճ X"GP5wC?kQHZ9iJ*eM`| d)JyN)E-6Yw#t)^7wB[z7*, BpmI>Eifpn)* ,ڎ'e5 `jmH@ËJ`k"g'M+WdIqn|/[ \H)KѻAfBr ^р 9_W߻6Xi2'R2_ʆNzb2DXql9J|g4цYFd VG}yr@"dXX??3` #Q ` #Q п23d23 M NM4 3Q:  PCC1Q ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  PPC1Q ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4 3Q:  PCP1Q ;Q ;Q3_ " NM  ""4E4 3Q:  PCC3Q ;Q ;Q3_ # NM  ##4E4 3Q:  PPC3Q ;Q ;Q3_ $ NM  $$4E4 3Q:  PCP3Q ;Q ;Q3_ % NM  %%4E4D $% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA{ 2 3OAd 3 b#M43*333333???#M! M4523   43"  3O % Mp73OQ44444e8@8@8@8@8@8@<@<@<@<@<@<@@@@@@@@@@@@@ex&?5^I ?jt?Q?/$?rh|?X9v?h|?5?V-??sh|???l?~jt?J +?Q?Pn?X9v?e> X9 A@  dMbP?_*+%M\HP LaserJet 8000 PCL 5eq.X.ߝ@ qX"d??U} I 3        8@<@@@    x&?X9v?l?~ j@K7A`? X9v?~  W@    5^I ?h|?5?~jt?~ `@d;O? N@?    jt?V-?J +?~ P@On? /$? K7?    @T@?@T@~@'1Z?~  P@ "~j?    /$?sh|??Pn?@R@ "~j?~  R@    rh|?~ T@X9v?k@S@ K? bX9?x@* + , - . / 0 1 2  **8@<@@@* + + + +|?5^?+`"?+x&?+ , , , ,B`"?~ ,A@,5^I ?, - - ~ -7@-Zd;O?-Dl?- . . .%C?.S㥛?~ .+@. / / /jt?/V-?/J +?/ 00rh|?~ 0T@0X9v? 11On?1/$?1K7? 2~ 2S@2K?2bX9?>rn``d@D8 (  p  6NMM?C &x]`~  A@"??3` #Q` #Q>3d23 M NM4 3Q:  PCC1Q ;Q ;Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:  PPC1Q ;Q ;Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4 3Q:  PCP1Q ;Q ;Q3_ " NM  ""4E4 3Q:  PCC3Q ;Q ;Q3_ # NM  ##4E4 3Q:  PPC3Q ;Q ;Q3_ $ NM  $$4E4 3Q:  PCP3Q ;Q ;Q3_ % NM  %%4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O&Q4FA} J 3OA` 3 b#M43*333333???#M! M4523   43"  3O % Mp73OQ44444eee xp  6NMM?`-E]`T~  A@"T??3` #Q` #Q>3d23 M NM4 3Q:+ T1RmasQ ;++Q ;**Q3_  NM   4E4 3Q:, T3RmasQ ;,,Q ;**Q3_ ! NM  !!4E4 3Q:- T1MmasQ ;--Q ;**Q3_ " NM  ""4E4 3Q:. T3MmasQ ;..Q ;**Q3_ # NM  ##4E4 3Q:/ T1RpassQ ;//Q ;**Q3_ $ NM  $$4E4 3Q:0 T3RpassQ ;00Q ;**Q3_ % NM  %%4E4 3Q:1 T1MpassQ ;11Q ;**Q3_ & NM   &&4E4 3Q:2 T3MpassQ ;22Q ;**Q3_ ' NM  ''4E4D $% MP+3O&Q4$% MP+3O&Q4FA J 3OB` 3 b#M43*#M! M4523   43" $ AbS3O$ A% Mp73OQ44444eee >@  7 David Stammanx Amy PieperaMicrosoft Excel@e@;՜.+,0 PX|  Academic Information Manage Sheet1Chart1  WorksheetsCharts_1061807544 F0V0VOle 'PRINT CompObj(fE?(      ''  "Geneva-----"Geneva------------------------"Systemn-'-   "--   !! "---'---  _2- $ "----'---   ,,??SSgg{{---'---   "-  ---'---  !!---'--- ---'---  "-_2-  $;;;$$%$%$$ ^ ^   $M G G M M G---'--- ---'---   "-  ,,??SSgg{{V V ---'---  -----'--- 8    2  146(((----'---  -----'---  +   2 : 89((----'---  -----'--- UN  2 dX19((----'---  -----'--- yb  2 q17((----'---  ---'---    2 I0( 2 !20(( 2 !40(( 2 !60(( 2 #!80(( 2 7100((( 2 K120((( 2 ^140((( 2 r160(((---'---  ---'---   2 C1996-97((((((2 C1997-98((((((2 C5 1998-99((((((2 Cn 1999-00((((((---'---  ------'--- = ~  2 Year5,,----'---  -----'--- d "Geneva-2 vNumber of Schools-----'---  ---'---  --'   '  ' FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89qOh+'08@Xl Diane Patrickx Amy PiepercMicrosoft Excel@2;՜.+,0 PObjInfo"*WorkbookSummaryInformation(!#+DocumentSummaryInformation8/, A@\p Amy Pieper Ba= " = <X@"1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva1Geneva"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)                + ) , *  ``Chart1|Sheet1Sheet2Sheet38ZR3  @@  01996-971997-981998-991999-00 &  A@MdWendy?",HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6.\ ƣQp1 Pf0BT H|DsE 15 eV+.d҈Dr6KR9k)JD2 )\z]Mtٽ r7URW¥ӪD*LFsujUN}JV1 1TqnMZ7n738gpE3(qܲIXm^sNh4{lݛeάClUƷ̈3e'o C1d:~ViӇ;v}ՂsHJ!cJ~^'q AשYJHY 8t!s iGtڇ0)& R _YxȺ9\cաAti  at Az * ^de0Ճ X"GP5wC?kQHZ9iJ*eM`| d)JyN)E-6Yw#t)^7wB[z7*, BpmI>Eifpn)* ,ڎ'e5 `jmH@ËJ`k"g'M+WdIqn|/[ \H)KѻAfBr ^р 9_W߻6Xi2'R2_ʆNzb2DXql9J|g4цYFd VG}yr@"d??3` # ` # ` 9#v * '3 d23 M NM4 3QQ ;Q ;Q3_ O   MM< 4E4D $% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O& Q4FA t 3Ohx 3 b#M43*#M! M4% 9M3O& Q  Year'4% JMZ3Op& Q &Number of Schools'4523 NM43" 44% _ fM*?3OsQ'4%  hM*?3OnQ'4%  hM*?3OeQ'4% / hM*?3O`Q'4% M ?3OQ'44e1996-971997-981998-991999-00e1@3@@V@@b@e>  A@  dMbP?_*+%"??U} m     1@3@@V@@b@8( @A@A j  0NMM?  "]`~  A@"??3` #` #` #` # 3d23 M NM4 3QQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4D $% MP+3O& Q4$% MP+3O&Q4FA  3OC 3 b#M43*#M! M4% ;;M3O&Q  Year'4% PMZ3Om&Q &Number of Schools'4523  O43"  3O % Mp73OQ4444% NR 8M3Ol&Q b/Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 1996-2000'44eee >@7 A@  dMbP?_*+%"??nU} m >@7 A@  dMbP?_*+%"??nU} m >@7 Xd lt| 1 Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart1  WorksheetsChartsOh+'0  ( H T ` lx0Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Four1Table>(&48<tCompObjNy#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l05H55F5p/ 4al0$$Ifl!vh5H55F5p#vH#v#vF#vp:V l (05H55F5p/ 4alp($$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l05$/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  05$/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l405$/ 4alf4$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 55#v #v#v:V l05 55/ 4al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l,55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l55F54al$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l 255F54alp2$$Ifl!vh55F5F5F5#v#vF#v:V l,55F54al$$Ifl!vh5 5j5#v #vj#v:V l 65 5j54alpU$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l465$4alf4O$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l65$4alU$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l465$4alf4{$$Ifl!vh5x5 5 #vx#v #v :V l65x5 5 4al{$$Ifl!vh5x5 5 #vx#v #v :V l65x5 5 4alU$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l465$4alf4n$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l  65$4alp O$$Ifl!vh5$#v$:V l65$4al$$Ifl!vh52 5T55` #v2 #vT#v#v` :V l652 5T55` 4al$$Ifl!vh52 5T55` #v2 #vT#v#v` :V l652 5T55` 4al$$Ifl!vh52 5T55` #v2 #vT#v#v` :V l652 5T55` 4alDyK www.sdfksjdflkjdsflkjfdsyK Bhttp://www.sdfksjdflkjdsflkjfds/DyK http://ritter.tea.state.tx.usyK >http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/DyK www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/yK Jhttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Dd c$J  C A? "2<2F\2O'?ʭ?J`!2F\2O'?ʭ?(mBZq;xZTU?̾ummwR按AC(YffndBH!R  FH^woP+s{>sA(d6 ̃>9)0UB>dy)!5=l /=*Oǿ yR t6 eE_f9P˥A sB)vE>-fNn7LVIw| Q?39"2م >EW !/3)^b/[}f_c@QF|-澸Xĺڗa8]%!Ɋ$cnf1hǡJ%Ÿ ']#n/i#}- xn~ԟb3&L+eL+FHV$Yd:j3[$E}dAIȢȘ(_ c '2}{پF-hwcGl,xB6[`> hꠝ:2g;;xVxR?[ S&˻BAeI hX~POȧO”˧ d.YK.*)qBf Y&,ӧ#di,MܒFJŸgs40|uXe8l z{skS5Lk]` 3R>Ou+yWSXi`B>Jd@21D#3 VƚIzK\D v?\+3~Nj8DsEsNGċzF$=Yn=xffƔ~S%G#GyVxÒʣ)|gnѻe3] kҷɫVٲ)%ޥ;T8<yߙF7)55yf?ՔOj0Ky_ECTԛ҉+vC=U@<11s*5pX=ckiM.$v8p&_<+3~)g8NDhmگ$\ݽ @/-=]*=E_CPQzX?}\ N<8h1<4 GjaX3d|%kVJ%^]zw-h8pݾ9J 0l`J{3mglQs{ VAz~lٸ,VBlr3m ֈ}׽II}i$8Y3Omd>Uli L4Nd;9OȜ'dj'"7VIdm ?eEEYї=[Z(frMb01atvw!tsΥa nFy zZ}ِ%zA4f\30#_* 3zm܁91G̘s0CŐ| U-f/!? y핋!UB~M ʒzU^5,&4ׁT1IwQ{ɤ{Ĥ{<}1W \/[>֫:uEF/6hDd #zJ  C A? "2 K@Ց%O$`!K@Ց%OXdhX(D9xݘOkAߛMRZ%R(,h`NPx`ޤTxoEC| [P8v&ْHC7Lv7o޿,B1ο:歋j ! a<3dr3xX sR>w FCb- , .5Qq1iM7b{|nF:TAYRLJ3:#F i&-hcH٠Y6p r`װX*Q.3͔3/{UUlbybyb1b"j 볧c/'F TkEKQ ߞ>ĢBChЬBBLLDD&fsGi!6`vyLl˜!cקV^ +"TSFjXy'}bagosk$>S|cY3F{# &|Z[QޒsY^ Kߓg<~1| }UgO%}YyOpi%LHS}P,aM$S*DEyϳ_L·K?'qI%M37[ehlȬ#f̑1-n ?tVppnG앱yd.vn0 x^j#fjX3Lf*"R? xޛ9{q|hbϢ=rڧ_7RF7{s~;}sۙV䄬TCER Normal.dotmlworley2Microsoft Office Word@@R_ =@V@V՜.+,D՜.+,` hp  TCER h 0Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Four Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA$-! http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/-! http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/-!http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/U%http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/-!http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/D!http://www.sdfksjdflkjdsflkjfds/  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q^0 666666666vvvvvvvvv66666686666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH <`< NormalCJ_HmH sH tH 8@8  Heading 1$@&5>@>  Heading 2$@& 6]aJB@B  Heading 3$@& B*CJ ph@@@  Heading 4$@& 5B*phH@H  Heading 5$5$7$8$9D@&H$5J@J  Heading 6$$@&a$5B*CJphD@D  Heading 7$@&5B*CJph^@^  Heading 8)$ ,5$7$8$9D@&H$5CJJ @J  Heading 9 $$@&a$5B*CJphDA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k`(No List 4@4 Header  !bR@b Body Text Indent 2# pX @@@J`^``ZC@Z Body Text Indent  X ^`6B@"6 Body Text5CJ04 @24 Footer  !.)@A. Page Number:@R:  Footnote TextCJ@&@a@ Footnote ReferenceH*<P@r< Body Text 2 B*ph:"@: Caption6B*CJph>Q@> Body Text 3 5B*ph0U@0 Hyperlink>*B*6>@6 Title$a$ 5\aJ@Z@@ Plain TextCJOJQJ^J0J@0 Subtitle5ROR OmniPage #15$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuROR OmniPage #25$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuROR OmniPage #3 5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuROR OmniPage #4!5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuRO"R OmniPage #5"5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuRO2R OmniPage #6#5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuROBR OmniPage #7$5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuRORR OmniPage #8%5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuRObR OmniPage #9&5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOrT OmniPage #10'5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOT OmniPage #11(5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOT OmniPage #12)5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOT OmniPage #13*5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOT OmniPage #15+5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHuTOT OmniPage #16,5$7$8$9DH$CJmHnHu\O\ OmniPage #21-5$7$8$9DH$CJOJQJmHnHu\O\ OmniPage #17.5$7$8$9DH$CJOJQJmHnHu@V@ FollowedHyperlink>*B* PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] ^p*Y(5f|kyڂa+Ѻ o DbT59 2 V   8Ѻ8;M33mr|s|X'Y'ػٻddHHHXX Xzg}gggxixx%'S <]8o_K`yelNzѺCp=nFAnKx(_?l ArCt ???????????MMM[[[[[[[[[[ZZZZZZ\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_yM4=ѯ>xsdPg6{{ NFQj{zC#"/:4Iv:i8=OCJ-LUr[agko~Xy+PƦv̷bw7Pn)< '$ ] 5 I X g v   0 I Z f s u w x t * il"'),05:3C\go}N>]ϩ "QkбOoƲ /EZHҹ$~#Dl+b(Pu2O_-[ ^nJZl~  ? Y s     !N7w.F& ";SV$%%A&B&z&{&&&[3x333356;6j6666;<<<h=UVVV/%6!!!5""%'&&&&!'+,<-\---- .#.1.I.V.n...0~22,3Z333334,4D4R4j4z4444r566772838\8]88888B$BIBhBBGJJvJJJQRRSS T'T@TbTzTTTTTTU3UKUmUUUUUU V$V@VXV{VVVVVVW4WxXU\}\\\4]]]`aadd3d4dddedddddmmmmnnLnMn}n~nnnvvvvvv w wDwEwwwwwxx;xYg~ *9Xhy8L^l 5D`p'5P_s (7^n*>NVbO >f';@j%3?sH"$$$$N%%-..0/t///00x0001f1112\2223J333.4v44 5F5556N666?:AvAA8BBBHCCDRDDErEEDFFGlGG*HHH:IIINJJKnKK*LLL8MMM\NNOvOO PPP>QRVx\\d]],^j^^dcxd ezYz[z\zzzzzzz{{{1{P{w{{{{tv؀ j؁2BjԂ΄hpqz{ͅ/;=>e5wxъ2:J`gwӋՋ֋"A[]^|Ռ |ԑՑ)@Ov̒ے.FUn}NŖ͖1;Qelޜ1GXiz̝ޝ!=WpȞ'Qyڢ;[xнWuſ6Tb9Z{ 4VsNu-Tp:V}4yvBnJsf<Sj-Kg0\4`|#2Cf([).@^ (Sbr!@"U"l""&<(()V)&-0000101O1l156:6a66666787^7{7777848T8x88=T==*>U>|>>>> ?-?T????? @G@z@dHII8JdJJJRSSSSS T$T.\t*՜RhIkoyIu+hw"+TB^ g  x   -  pRjtQ^FIUo   2!!"$H%@&&()*,-X./^0 113*4\556::::;9;X;};;<K<<<e=?ZAbAAAAA BYBBBBB CRCCDFG?GhGGGGIIII$JKJsJJJJKPKKKLLJOdOOOuRTVY\ adg^km pWt {~`ˍ[t{*ILYD^_&a&ceg jgmGoqtubxZz|.ނ8I |ې& r5Dr?|Ӗז*-ח*jt̘֘1;iә%(nʚ&( #_WIK_sޟTY٠-L(c͢3n(O9tݥ/]Ц ExK˨Qɷcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345689:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'(*+,-./0123456789:;=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f h i j k l m n o p q r s t u w x y z { | } ~                          ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e g h i j k l m n o p q r t v y |(*bDb88Ѻ::XXX 3:<?FIMTW_!!4!!!!*Wk 7 B t XXX35;::?2$2F\2O'?ʭ?*$2$K@Ց%OB 0e0e     A@  A5% 8c8c     ?A)BCD|E||S"@`(  \  S A ?"?b  S A ?#" ?B S  ?nQѺQ 2,Q$4revenue expendituresobject_expendituresprogram_expendituressummary|n@.Һ|n@.Һuu% =vu%zwu%޷xu%|Jyu%zu%{u%|u%R }u%l~u%Du%L=u%=u%H u%u%, u%u%L u%J u%I u%H u%6 u%I u%\I u%I u%J u%\J u%J 66DMMNNSX`88@Һ     @IIVV  RW_ff  ?FFҺ  8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState M   >>bbuc{c-h6h,/]`ru(())))////(/+/fHiHHHNNNN``c`DaGanniolo}}v|EHbeċ/2NQʎ͎47ux X[&)@Cadadwz    ####++, ,333388888899'9*9A9D9h9k999AAAAmIpIIIRRRRTTWWX Xrauaaa!.1++g,p,--F!FGGHHII;LELLLMM,O1OOPTTTTUUUUiWqWWWWW.[6[[[[[\\^^:`>`q`u````aaaۄ߄*.QU{$(@GSW W[]aԊ؊svw{|ЌԌkuvzÍ̍,1?C59rvQU:=>BCGRUW[kqy}-0#X\$KS|!,/19aefjÚǚ7?@Dqt#*koş59ek-5?C)+WZz4;w!$Z]|QTuxCFgjeh kn"%[^"%dg # Y \         T W     A D |$$%%--4499>>xE{EYq\qrr=@![^x{~PS`cBKDKKKINKNNNEQGQQQWW*\,\o\q\^^````eeffllDlFlFpHptttt!v#v {{LNfhHJhjܜޜfiìHP6=ͻѻ[b/33;'/%acef./uuuuv"v:vFv~xxxxxxyy:;gƱ˱ޱ :<=?@BCEFҺ#&JLDH57P R !!#"%"R(X(,,--c.g.o0~0I2L22222@@IIMMPP\\%]4]]]```afҺ333333333333333333333333333333333MN::YY      01OPlm $(&(*0+03333r|s|X'Y'ػٻdd88z{ǢȢFG~"#[\23hhfg`bvԬլ֬KJȯɯ˯z{9:<=?@BCEFmwyǹɹ˹'3Һ88g8:mwyǹ'3ͺϺҺ>N }NQ-o  Z ~>XW x M}'4($y.WK8F\J,M= )3]ز/1jM lZ6)\o詖w ~Uy 0Q^`OJPJQJ^Jo( ^`OJQJo(o   ^ `OJQJo( jj^j`OJQJo( ::^:`OJQJo(o   ^ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o zz^z`OJQJo(88^8`B*OJQJo(ph pp^p`OJQJo(o @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( PP^P`OJQJo(o   ^ `OJQJo(hh^h`o(.88^8`o(.^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.88^8`o(.^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hh^h`.88^8`CJo(.^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hh^h`B*CJOJ QJ ^Jo(ph"  ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(M}'4~Uy.WK8lXW )3]Z>M=-o \ow1jN                  :t        ̜h        ܲ0                         7        &J         @ @/M)(Ggi_AMO_XmlVersionL Empty@()/0HINO_`no}~  "#+,23789ABHIQRWX`a::    $%-.45ǧǨǩǫǬǭǮǯdzǴGG+++++YѺ@t@<@$L@4l@<|@V@^@p@@$@D@L@d@@@@@@ @4@ D@,\@2h@6p@@@H@R@Z@`b@l@t@~@@$@@@ @<@$L@.0246p@@BDFHJLNP@\@d@n@x@ @(T @<| @B @H @L @ @ @ @0 @8 @"$L @(*,.` @24l @8t @.@Unknown G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialG5  hMS Mincho-3 fgY CG TimesTimes New Roman9GaramondEMonotype Sorts?= * Courier New;Wingdings3* TimesA BCambria Math"ph@D&@D&rYh h !4d2QHX? (2! xx/Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year FourTCERlworleyD