ࡱ>  mn bjbj<< ^^Jc%l   $Pty 25"T"T"T"X1Z1Z1Z1Z1Z1Z135Z1i+!|T"++Z11000+R"160+X1000o"05V,0110 20y6.y60y60,T"@%0V')T"T"T"Z1Z1x0XT"T"T" 2++++y6T"T"T"T"T"T"T"T"T" :  Texas open-enrollment Charter schools Sixth-year evaluation Executive Summary July 2003 Prepared for Prepared by Texas Center for Educational Research Texas Center for Educational Research Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Sixth-year Evaluation Executive Summary July 2003  INTRODUCTION Over the past eight years, Texas charter schools have emerged within the context of the growth of the charter school movement throughout the United States. Since Minnesota enacted the first charter school legislation in 1991, 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted charter school laws. During the 2002-03 school year, approximately 2,700 charter schools served more than 684,000 students nationwide, and Texas was one of five states with the most charter schools in operation. Texas originally passed legislation in 1995 establishing charter schools. The 74th Legislature authorized the creation of 20 open-enrollment charter schoolspublic schools substantially released from state education regulations (Texas Education Code [TEC], 12.101-12.120). In 1997, optimistic legislators raised the cap on the number of open-enrollment charters from 20 to 120 and allowed an unlimited number of charter schools serving 75 percent or more at-risk students (75 Percent Rule). As a result, the number of charters awarded by the State Board of Education (SBOE) increased significantly. Despite hopeful expectations for charter schools, myriad problemsespecially financial irregularitiesaccompanied rapidly increasing numbers of schools. In response to public concern with the academic and financial performance of charter schools, Texas lawmakers further revised state statutes governing charter schools in 2001. House Bill 6 (HB 6) capped the number of charter schools the SBOE may grant at 215, allowed for an unlimited number of schools sponsored by public senior colleges and universities, gave the Commissioner of Education expanded oversight, and specified other regulatory provisions. Over time and with legislative changes, the number of Texas charter schools has increased markedly from 17 charter schools operating in the 1996-97 school year to 180 charter schools and 241 campuses operating in 2001-02. This report presents findings for the sixth annual evaluation of Texas open-enrollment charter schools. METHODOLOGY Texas state statute (TEC, 12.118) calls for the Commissioner of Education to select an impartial organization with experience evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of charter schools. Acting on behalf of the commissioner, the () contracted with the Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER) to conduct the evaluation. The study encompasses a variety of data sources, including analyses of the most recently available Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data for schools and campuses; surveys of charter school directors, teachers, students, and parents; analyses of Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores and other outcome measures for charter school students and comparison groups of traditional public school students; a survey of officials in affected traditional public school districts; and data from interviews, focus groups, and classroom observations conducted during site visits to charter schools. Researchers have tried to provide accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive information on charter schools by examining multiple data sources and varied perspectives. Data Analysis Analysis by charter school type. Charter schools serving a predominantly at-risk student population are often quite different from those serving less at-risk students. To capture the variation among the educational missions of charter schools, investigators have grouped charter schools to distinguish between those serving more advantaged students and those serving a preponderance of students who are at-risk of failure or dropout. Charter schools and campuses in this report are frequently divided into two distinct types for analysis: (a)charter schools serving 70 percent or more at-risk students and (b)charter schools serving less than 70 percent at-risk students. Students PEIMS economically disadvantaged status is used as a surrogate for at-risk. The 70 percent cut-point, in contrast to 75 percent used in previous evaluations, was selected to ensure that charter schools serving as Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs)which unquestionably serve a highly at-risk student populationwere included in the comparison group with predominantly at-risk students. Analysis by years of charter school operation. Years of operation refers to the number of school years that a charter school has operated. For this report, comparisons are based on operating years for the original charter school. All campuses associated with a particular charter will have the same length of operation regardless of when individual campuses were created. Analyses include three categories: (a)campuses associated with charters that began operation in 1996 or 1997 (in operation four or more years), (b)campuses associated with charters operating three years, and (c)campuses associated with charters operating one or two years. Study Limitations Several factors complicate the analysis of charter school data. The first issue is data integrity. With the exception of the TAAS, the majority of data are self-reported; thus, information often reflects respondents perceptions. The accuracy of PEIMS data also varies. In 2001-02, charter schools had a higher average Person Identification Database (PID) error rate (11.6%) compared to the state average (1.5%). Secondly, student mobility reduces the number of charter school students included in the state accountability system. Only 60% of charter school students are included in 2001-02 compared to 85% of students statewide. Thirdly, identifies charter schools both as districts and campuses, so analyses involve both categories. Some comparisons use charter school-level data (similar to traditional public school districts), whereas others rely on charter school campus-level dataas a result, reported numbers of charter schools vary. Finally, for the majority of comparisons, the school is the unit of analysis. In some instances, however, the student is the analysis unit. For school-level analyses, each school receives equal weight, whereas with the student as the unit, larger schools receive more weight in calculations. In general, the reader must consider study limitations when interpreting the reported information. MAJOR FINDINGS Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools The number of Texas charter schools and students enrolled in those schools has climbed steadily since the first school opened in 1996. During the 1996-97 school year, 17 open-enrollment charter schools operated in Texas. By 200102, the number of charter schools in operation reached 180, an increase of 20 schools over 200001. Two-thirds of charter campuses are associated with charter schools operating either three years (90 campuses, 37%) or four or more years (71 campuses, 30%). Across six years, the number of students enrolled in charter schools has increased significantly, from 2,498 in 199697 to 46,304 in 200102 (Table1). Even so, the total charter school student enrollment represents only 1% of the more than four million public school students in Texas. Table 1. Number of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools and Students Served School YearTotal Charter Schools in OperationNumber of 75% Rule ChartersaNumber of Students Enrolled Average Campus Enrollment1996-9717--2,4981471997-9819--4,1352171998-99894517,6161981999-001464625,6871562000-011605137,6961882001-02180--46,304192Source: 2002 Snapshot. Open-enrollment evaluation reports, years one to five (www.tcer.org ). a The 75 Percent Rule charter designation was authorized in 1997 and eliminated in 2001. Over the past four years, charter schools have also expanded by opening new campuses associated with existing charter schools. In 2001-02, 20 new charter schools and 41 new campuses were in operation (Figure1).  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 1. Number of Texas open-enrollment charter schools and campuses, 1996-2002. Charter school campuses are small compared to traditional public schools. Charter school campuses have an average 200102 enrollment of 192 (about 35% of the traditional public school average enrollment of 544 students). Approximately three-fourths of charter school campuses enroll 236 students or less (Table 1). Approximately 40% of charter schools served 70% or more at-risk students in 2001-02. Of the 241 charter school campuses (Figure 2), 100 (41%) served 70% or more at-risk students (i.e., economically disadvantaged), whereas 141 (59%) served less than 70% at-risk students.  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  To date, 5 charters have been revoked, 20 returned, and 1 has expired. The revoked charters involve 1 firstgeneration school and 2 second- and 2 thirdgeneration schools. The returned charters include 19 thirdgeneration schools and 1 fourthgeneration school. The single expired charter involved a firstgeneration school. Student Demographics Charter schools have proportionately more kindergarten and high school students. Compared to other public schools, charter schools have proportionately more students at pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, and at grades 9 through 11. Conversely, charters have proportionately fewer students at grades 1 through 8 and 12. Charters enrolling primarily atrisk students have relatively more students at the lower grades (K-4) and fewer at the upper grades (10-12). Charter school students are ethnically diverse. Compared to the student population in Texas traditional public schools in 2001-02, charter schools have a substantially higher percentage of African American students (40% versus 14%), a substantially lower percentage of White students (20% versus 41%), and a slightly lower percentage of Hispanic students (38% versus 42%). Charters serving 70% or less atrisk students enroll substantially more White students (27%) than schools serving primarily atrisk students (9%).  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 3. Charter school student demographic data, 2001-02. Charter school students are somewhat more economically disadvantaged but less likely to be identified for special services. In 2001-02, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in charter schools (58%) is higher than the state average (51%). However, charter schools have lower percentages of limited English proficient (7%) and special education students (9%) compared to state averages (15% and 12%, respectively). New charter schools have different student demographics than more established schools. Percentages of White students are highest in the newest charters (in existence for one or two years). Wellestablished charter schools (four or more years) have the highest percentage of Hispanic students, whereas charters in operation for three years have the highest percentage of African American students. Average school size increases with years experience. The percentages of African American, Hispanic, and White students enrolled in charter schools have remained stable over the last three years. The ethnic distribution of charter school students has more recently remained at approximately 40% African American, 38% Hispanic, and 20% White. The proportion of economically disadvantaged students has increased slightly (Figure4).  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 4. Charter school student demographic trends. Teacher Characteristics Charter schools employ more minority teachers. Charter school faculties have more minority teachers (57%) compared to the state (26%), with a greater proportion of African American teachers (34% versus 8%), slightly more Hispanic teachers (20% versus 17%), and substantially less White teachers (43% versus 74%). Charter schools have less experienced teachers. Charter school teachers in 2001-02, on average, are less experienced (5 years) than teachers in traditional public schools (12 years). The percentage of charter school teachers with five years or less experience is considerably higher than the state average (71% versus 34%). Charter school teachers are less likely to have degrees. In 2001-02, only 70% of charter school teachers have baccalaureate degrees compared to 81% of traditional public school teachers. Charter school teachers are also less likely to have advanced degrees (14% versus 18%). Charter schools have lower teacher salaries and higher teacher turnover. Teachers in charter schools are paid less than those in traditional public schools. In 2001-02, the average teacher salary in charter schools ($29,343) was about $9,000 below that for teachers in traditional public schools ($38,278). The salary gap has remained large across six years. The turnover rate for teachers in charter schools (53%) is much higher than the state average (17%) in 2001-02. Charter schools have higher student-teacher ratios than traditional schools. The average student-teacher ratio in charter schools (18 to 1) is higher than the ratio in Texas traditional public schools (14 to 1). Averages reflect school-level ratios rather than classroom ratios. Charter school teacher characteristics have changed over time. Across the six-year span, the number of charter school teachers increased from 123 to 2,692 (Table 2). Average teacher experience remained low but relatively stable across time (4 to 5 years). Teacher salaries increased slightly from $25,408 to $29,343 (about $4,000). Student-teacher ratios declined substantially (from 29:1 to 18:1). Consistent with student demographic trends, the percentage of African American teachers increased across years. Notably, the percentage of teachers with no degree increased from 3% to 16% over six years. Teacher turnover rates are mixed but spiked in recent years (52%, 46%, and 53%). Table 2. Charter School Teacher Characteristics Across Years Teacher Characteristics1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-02Total number (FTE)1232847341,5182,0242,692Average experience4.34.85.04.75.15.4Average salary$25,408$24,222$26,944$27,460$27,755$29,343Student-teacher ratio28.821.517.816.118.417.8% with baccalaureate degree72.9%70.6%68.7%68.7%69.4%70.4%% with no degree2.6%3.8%9.9%14.1%15.8%15.7%% African American20.2%24.2%26.4%34.2%35.4%34.4%% White47.5%41.9%47.2%42.4%41.2%42.5%% Hispanic29.1%25.3%24.5%21.8%21.8%20.0%Teacher turnover rate--35.0%15.2%51.7%45.8%53.0%Source. AEIS Reports. Administrator Characteristics Charter schools have proportionately more administrators. About 3% of charter school staff is central administration, compared to about 2% statewide. Although 10% of charter school staff is campus administration, only 4% is campus administration statewide. Charter schools small staff size may elevate administrative proportions. Charter school administrators have lower salaries. Both central and campus charter school administrators are paid less than those in traditional public schools. In 2001-02, the average central administrator salary in charter schools ($52,308) was about $14,000 below that for central administrators in traditional public schools ($66,100). Likewise, the average campus administrator salary in charter schools ($40,577) was about $18,000 below that for central administrators in traditional public schools ($58,544). Charter School Revenues and Expenditures  Charter schools receive the preponderance of their funding from the state. Charter schools have no taxable property and are funded mostly by the state (77%), although they also receive federal funding (15%) and funding from local sources (8%). Local funding comes primarily from grants and donations (Figure 5). Figure 5. Charter school revenue sources, 2001-02. Charter schools have lower per-pupil expenditures than public schools statewide. Although charter schools average $6,783 per pupil in expenditures, public schools statewide expend $8,649 per student on average. However, charter school serving predominantly at-risk students have substantially higher per-pupil expenditures ($8,067) than charter schools serving less at-risk students ($6,137). In all program expenditure categories except basic educational services, public schools statewide expend more per pupil than charter schools. Charter school expenditures per pupil for basic educational services exceed the state average for all districts ($3,202 compared to $3,106). However, the per-pupil expenditures for gifted and talented ($12 compared to $82), career and technology ($115 compared to $200), special education ($448 compared to $786), accelerated instruction ($400 compared to $621), bilingual education ($31 compared to $205), and athletics and related activities ($21 compared to $124) are lower for charter schools. Among function expenditures, instruction accounts for the largest per-pupil expenditure for charter schools. Instruction expenditures ($3,426) represent 51% of total expenditures. Other relatively large categories include general administration at 13%, plant maintenance and operations also at 13%, and school leadership at 8%. The most striking contrast between charter schools serving primarily at-risk students and those serving less at-risk students is that the former spend 40% more perpupil for instruction. Charter school per-pupil expenditures increased over the last two years. In 200001 and 200102, the state remained the greatest source of funding for charter schools (78% and 77%, respectively). Across the two school years, there was a total average per-pupil expenditure increase of $960 (from $5,823 to $6,783). Perspectives of Charter School Directors Charter school directors, on average, are well educated and often reflect the diversity of their student population. More than half (55%) of surveyed directors hold a masters degree and 16% have doctorates. About a third of directors have been administrators in public schools and a few have prior experience as private school administrators. Overall, directors have 8.4 years experience as administrators. Charter schools with a greater proportion of at-risk students have higher percentages of Hispanics and African Americans in leadership positions. Educational programs and assessments in charter schools vary by the characteristics of students enrolled. Directors in schools with predominantly at-risk students more often report using extended-day and extended-week schedules, block schedules, credit through flexible courses, and standardized assessments. In contrast, directors in schools with less at-risk students report using multi-age grouping and student and teacher teams with a greater share of their student populations, and more often rely on alternative assessments, such as student projects, writing samples, and student demonstrations. Charter schools have limited access to educational technology. Although charter schools are building technology infrastructure, only three-fourths of directors (76%) indicate their schools have a computer lab, with an average of 19 computer stations available for student use. Similarly, only 76% of directors report charter school classrooms have Internet access. Directors most often cite student tardiness and absenteeism as discipline problems. Although student discipline and behavior problems in charter schools are generally considered as only minor problems, directors most often identify student tardiness (91%) and absenteeism (87%) as problems. Less than half of directors consider vandalism of school property, physical conflicts among students, or student drug or alcohol abuse as problems, with most considering these only minor problems. The greatest barrier faced by directors is inadequate finances for ongoing school operations. The majority of directors cite inadequate finances as a barrier (86%), with finances considered a great barrier for almost half of schools. Directors are also challenged by the hiring of teachers, too much paperwork and excessive reporting requirements, and inadequate facilities. Charter school directors are seeking assistance from a variety of organizations to support school operations. Many charter school directors rely on support from education service centers (ESCs) for professional development (82%), curricula and instructional issues (78%), and PEIMS issues (73%). Monetary support more often comes from the and business or community groups. Charter schools are being integrated into the larger state educational community. Recent efforts at the state and regional levels focused on connecting charter schools to public education support systems have succeeded. The majority of directors report networking with traditional public school educators at professional conferences (77%), ESC events (74%), and regional/state meetings (61%). Although keenly aware of existing problems with charter schools in the state, directors are still optimistic about charter school potential. Charter school directors, foremost, believe charter schools have benefited public education by providing school choice for students and parents and by serving students who do not fit the traditional public school model. In general, directors appear eager for assistance to improve weaknesses that undermine the charter school movement. Perspectives of Charter School Teachers Teachers seek employment in charter schools for positive reasons. In making the decision to teach in charter schools, teachers are highly influenced by the chance to be involved in educational reform, opportunities to work with colleagues who are of like mind, high academic standards in the charter school, and other positive school conditions. Of little importance to teachers is the fear of not finding another position or the desire to be in an environment with less standardized testing. Although few charter school teachers are certified, most report working toward certification. About a third of charter school teachers report being certified to teach either in Texas (32%) or in another state (6%)however, most of the uncertified teachers report working to obtain Texas teaching certification. Teachers use a variety of instructional and assessment methods, but traditional methods are the most widely implemented. Almost all teachers (99%) have students complete individual assignments and provide one-on-one instruction. Less traditional methods, such as student reports, long-term projects, computer-based activities, and multimedia presentations are used far less often. Similarly, teachers are most likely to assess students in a traditional fashion by administering teacher-made tests. Alternative assessment methods, such as student portfolios and student projects, are also widely used. About three-fourths of charter schools have some type of formal teacher appraisal system. Of charter schools with an appraisal system, 22% use the state-developed Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) forms, 46% rely on a system of observations by administrators, and 16% of teachers are uncertain of the exact system that is used. Teachers report minimal student discipline or behavior problems. Attendance, both in terms of tardiness and absenteeism, is the greatest problem in charter schools, with about 46% of teachers viewing each as a moderate to serious problem. Drug and alcohol abuse is seen as only half as serious, with only 19% of teachers reporting they believe it is a moderate to serious problem at their school. High school teachers perceived more discipline problems in all areas, except for physical conflicts among students. Teachers are generally satisfied with the operation of their charter schools. More than 85% of teachers either agree or strongly agree that their school has high expectations for students and the school is meeting students learning needs. Although charter school teachers have a favorable impression of their school, nearly half believe their schools have insufficient classroom and financial resources and their salary is unsatisfactory. Teachers in charter schools serving less at-risk students are more concerned about their schools financial resources than are teachers in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students. Student Satisfaction with Charter Schools Students (82%) indicate that teacher quality and their parents opinion of the school are the most important factors in their decision to attend a charter school. Other influential factors include previous teachers not helping enough, poor grades at their previous school, and fewer student conflicts. Students attending higher performing charter schools (rated as Exemplary, Commended, or Recognized) were less likely to report that poor grades or getting into trouble at their previous school were influential factors in their choice of school, but cited the desire for more challenging classes as a more important factor in their choice. Although most charter school students are satisfied with their school, satisfaction varies by school characteristics. Nearly three-fourths of surveyed students say their charter school is a good choice, and they learn more at their current charter school than their previous school. Students attending schools serving primarily at-risk students, however, are less satisfied with their schools. They are less likely to believe the school is a good choice, feel safe at school, believe other students help them learn, think teachers know their name, and feel that they learn more at their current charter school. Students report improved grades at their current charter school. The proportion of students earning mostly As or mostly As and Bs increased from 34% at their previous school to 53% at the charter school, whereas the percentage of students making Cs and Ds or Ds and Fs declined from 23% to 7%. Grade improvement was even greater for students attending charter schools serving primarily at-risk students. About half of charter school students have aspirations for higher education. Overall, approximately 50% of surveyed students indicate they plan to attend a community college or a four-year university. Compared to high school students, a significantly higher percentage of middle school students say they plan to attend a four-year college (52% versus 29%). Conversely, high school students more often report they plan to attend a community college (19% versus 7%). About half of charter school students say they will return to their school next year, although student intentions vary by school characteristics. Overall, 55% of surveyed students report that they plan to attend their current charter school next year. Students in schools serving primarily at-risk students, however, are less likely to say they will return to their current school (41%) compared to students in schools serving less at-risk students (63%). Parent Participation and Satisfaction Charter school parents use a variety of informational sources in school selection. About 70% of surveyed parents learn about a charter school from other parents having children at the charter school. Other information sources used in school selection by parents are the academic performance of students in the charter school (62%), the schools accountability rating (58%), and information from charter brochures (52%). The least frequently used source of information is the charter schools website (32% of parents). Good teachers (98%) and the schools education program (97%) most commonly influence charter school parents school choice decision. Other important factors in parents selection include the schools academic reputation (90%), the teaching of moral values (90%), the approach to discipline (87%), the ability to serve specific education needs (87%), and the reputation of school staff (85%). The parents of children attending charter schools serving primarily atrisk children are more likely to cite performance at and dissatisfaction with a previous school as an influence over school choice. Charter school parents and a comparison group of traditional public school parents in close geographic proximity to charter schools cite different reasons for decisions regarding school choices. Small school size is more important to charter school parents (77% compared to 40%), along with the teaching of moral values (90% compared to 80%), and the quality of the educational program (97% compared to 87%). On the other hand, a convenient location is more important to the parents who elect to keep their children in traditional public schools (79% compared to 61%). Charter school parents express high levels of satisfaction with the charter schools their children currently attend. Charter school parents are more approving of their childs current school (50% assign an A grade) than the previous school their child attended (22% assign an A grade). Overall, charter school parents are more positive about their childs school than comparison group parents. Charter parents express higher satisfaction levels than traditional public school parents with their childs current school (50% assign an A grade compared to 41% of comparison parents). In particular, charter school parents are more likely to feel that their child receives sufficient attention (91% compared to 74%), class sizes are small (88% compared to 57%), and the school emphasizes content over test preparation (86% compared to 73%). However, traditional public school parents are more likely to be satisfied with enrichment programs (87% compared to 81%), extracurricular activities (90% compared to 72%), and support services (84% compared to 72%). Charter parents are more likely than traditional public school parents to participate in their childrens schools. Specifically, charter parents had higher school participation levels than comparison parents for volunteering for school activities, visiting classrooms, attending PTO meetings, attending parent/teacher conferences, assisting with fundraising, attending school board meetings, helping to make curricular decisions, and serving as a board member. In addition, parents of children in charters serving less at-risk students are more likely to participate in activities at their childs school, particularly in the areas of fundraising and volunteering. Campus-Level Performance of Charter Schools Compared to the state, charter schools are more likely to be rated under the alternative education accountability system. The percentage of charter school campuses rated under the alternative education (AE) system in 2002 (54%) is much higher than the state (3%), and over the past four years, the percentage of charter schools applying for ratings under the AE system has increased significantly. Conversely, of all campuses in the state, 97% received standard ratings in 2002 compared to only 46% of charter campuses (Figure 6).  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 6. Charter and traditional campuses included in accountability systems. The percentage of Low-Performing charter schools decreased slightly in 2002. The percentage of Low-Performing charter school campuses decreased from 44% to 40% between 2001 and 2002, whereas the percentage for traditional public schools remained consistently low across school years (2%). In addition, while the combined percentage of charter schools rated as either Exemplary or Recognized increased from 14% to 27% between the two years, the percentage of higher-performing traditional schools increased from 60% to 67% (Table 3). Table 3. Campus Performance Ratings for Charter and Traditional Public Schools RatingCharter SchoolsTraditional Public Schools19992000200120021999200020012002StandardaExemplary13%8%5%17%18%20%24%30%Recognized20%11%9%10%30%32%36%37%Acceptable47%49%42%34%51%46%38%32%Low-Performing20%32%44%40%2%2%2%2%N rated156396916,2066,3636,6166,444N not ratedb45813134160140149659Alternative EducationCommendedn/a0%2%6%n/a2%5%17%Acceptable83%27%38%57%--88%84%77%Needs Review17%73%61%37%11%11%7%N rated63362106------230Source: Division of Student Performance Reporting. Note. The Commended rating was instituted in 2000. -- indicates unavailable data. Results for AE traditional exclude charter campuses; standard results include charter campuses. a Percentages based on four ratings. b Includes campuses not rated for data quality, grades PK-K, new charter, and insufficient data. In 2002, there was a large decrease in the percentage of charter campuses receiving alternative education ratings of Needs Peer Review. Of all charter school campuses rated under the AE system in 2002, 37% needed peer review compared to 61% in 2001. Even so, only 11% of traditional public schools rated under the AE system needed peer review. The percentages of charter school campuses rated as Commended (6%) and Acceptable (57%) in 2002 also increased (Table 3). Campuses affiliated with charter schools operating four or more years performed better on accountability ratings compared to charter school campuses as a whole. Combining the standard and AE rating systems, 15 experienced campuses (21%) were rated as either Exemplary, Recognized, or Commended; 41 campuses (57%) were Acceptable, and 16 campuses (22%) had either LowPerforming or Needs Peer Review ratings. Although these charter school campuses outperformed charter schools overall, they still lag behind traditional public schools in accountability ratings. Charter schools perform well below state averages on TAAS. Student TAAS performance in charter schools is well below the state average in all areasparticularly in mathematics, writing, and social studies. Moreover, lower passing rates are constant across all student comparison groups. Consistent with state patterns, White students in charter schools outperform minority students (Table 4). Table 4. 2002 TAAS Performance for All Charter Schools and State Average CategoryCharter Schools State Average DifferencePercent of Students Passing TAASAll tests taken57.785.3-27.6Reading76.991.3-14.4Mathematics69.192.7-23.6Writing66.188.7-22.6Social Studies61.583.7-22.2Percent of Students Passing All Tests TakenAfrican American55.477.2-21.8Hispanic55.079.7-24.7White67.992.5-24.6Economically disadvantaged55.478.2-22.8Source: 2002 AEIS reports. TAAS performance for charter schools improved from 2000 to 2002however, the charter-traditional school achievement gap remains large. Between 2000 and 2002, charter schools had TAAS passing rate gains across all subtests (8 to 17 percentage points). Although charter schools made progress at a faster rate than traditional public schools, the achievement gap between charter and traditional schools still remains (Table5). Table 5. TAAS Performance for All Charter Schools, 2000 to 2002 TAAS All Charter SchoolsState Average200020012002Change200020012002ChangeAll tests taken43.146.757.714.679.982.185.35.4Reading64.270.276.912.787.488.991.33.9Writing58.461.066.17.788.287.988.70.5Mathematics52.559.369.116.687.490.292.75.3Source: 2000, 2001, and 2002 AEIS reports, non-matched students. Students in charter schools have less advanced course completions and lower endofcourse passing rates compared to traditional public schools. Compared to analogous state comparison group averages, charter school students in grades 7 to 12 complete less advanced courses and have lower passing rates on end-of-course exams. The small numbers of charter campuses in some comparison groups, however, limits the generalizability of findings (Table 6). Table 6. Campus Advanced Course and End-of-Course Performance MeasureCS e" 70% At-RiskState Eco. Dis. StudentsCS < 70% At-RiskState All Studentsn%n%Advanced course completion477.112.8758.019.3Passing Biology EOC1552.467.54962.379.8Passing Algebra EOC1915.845.15226.457.8Passing English II EOC1538.558.34947.869.0Passing U.S. History EOC1446.558.84147.873.9Source: 2002 AEIS reports. Note. n refers to the number of campuses, % refers to the percentage of students. State Eco. Dis. refers to the statewide percentage of economically disadvantaged students either completing or passing. Charter schools have lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates. Charter schools have lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates than analogous state comparison groups (Table7). Charter schools serving less at-risk students have higher dropout rates and lower attendance rates than charter schools enrolling primarily at-risk students. Table 7. 2001-02 Student Attendance and Dropout Rates MeasureCS e" 70% At RiskCS < 70% At-Risk All Charters StateAttendance 92.788.890.495.6Annual dropout rate 2.03.52.91.0Source: 2002 AEIS Reports. Student-Level Performance Between the 1997-98 and 2001-02 school years, the number of students enrolled in charter schools increased dramatically from 4,135 to 46,304. The student-level analyses involved, in total, 63,785 students who enrolled in charter schools at some time during the four-year period. Analyses involved matched TAAS data for individual students (i.e., the student is the unit of analysis rather than the campus). Longitudinal analyses are informative because student TAAS performance is tracked across time. Nevertheless, a number of issues limit the interpretation of results, including difficulties matching student identification numbers across years, student survivorship over time, small numbers of cases in comparison groups, and the limited number of students with TAAS scores. In addition, when the student is the unit of analysis, larger schools receive more weight in calculations. The findings to follow should be considered within limitations. Continuing charter school students had solid TAAS reading and mathematics gains. Charter school students with matched test scores (i.e., showing continuous enrollment) had solid TAAS passing rate gains for both reading and mathematics (10 to 15 percentage points). In 2002, passing rates for continuing charter students (79% to 85%) approach state averages (91% to 93%). Students attending charter schools with primarily at-risk students have lower TAAS performance levels and gains than students in charter schools serving less at-risk students (Table8). Table8. TAAS Percent Passing for Students Attending Charter Schools, by School Type Percent Passing TAASCharter School e" 70% At-Risk Charter School < 70% At-Riskn20012002Diff.n20012002Diff.Reading1,20868.978.69.72,38673.784.610.9Mathematics1,24368.978.59.62,40865.981.215.3Source: Analysis of individual student data from PEIMS; includes students in grades 3-8 and 10. Note. Students attended charter school in 2000-01 and 2001-02 and had TAAS scores for both years. Charter school students TAAS passing rates vary by grade level. Charter school students TAAS reading passing rates are highest in grades 6 to 8 and 10, and lowest in grade 3. TAAS mathematics passing rates are highest in grades 5 to 8, and lowest in grades 3 and 10. State TAAS passing rates are also lowest in grade 3, but not necessarily grade 10.  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 7. 2002 TAAS percent passing by grade level for students attending charter schools. Performance of Continuing and Moving Students Evaluators compared the performance of students continuously enrolled in charter schools with student cohorts who moved between the traditional public school system and charter schools. Comparisons displayed in Table 9 involve charter school students in grade 8 or lower in 2002 with TAAS reading and mathematics scores for three years (2000, 2001, and 2002). Traditional public school students include those enrolled in charter schools some time between 1998-99 and 2001-02. Although it is difficult to make definitive statements about findings, observations to follow seem worth reporting. Table 9. TAAS Percent Passing, by School Category Over Three Years School CategoryStudentsPercent PassingGain/Loss1999-002000-012001-02N20002001200220012002ReadingCharterCharterCharter1,44865.078.185.113.17.0CharterCharterPublic1,25472.374.682.72.38.1CharterPublicPublic2,12176.476.980.50.53.6PublicPublicCharter1,16662.182.687.820.55.2PublicCharterCharter63763.675.586.211.910.7PublicCharterPublic75176.375.885.2-0.59.4PublicPublicPublic61581.588.692.87.14.2MathematicsCharterCharterCharter1,46254.476.184.321.78.2CharterCharterPublic1,30069.673.582.13.98.6CharterPublicPublic2,19170.675.579.54.94.0PublicPublicCharter1,19052.582.487.229.94.8PublicCharterCharter63352.471.285.018.813.8PublicCharterPublic76670.274.785.94.511.2PublicPublicPublic63778.089.592.011.52.5Source: Analysis of individual student data from PEIMS. Note. Public refers to traditional public schools. Continuous student enrollment in charter schools may have a positive influence on academic performance. Students enrolled in charter schools in both 2001 and 2002 had two-year gains in both TAAS reading and mathematics exceeding 20 percentage points. On the other hand, first-year charter school students in 2002, who were enrolled in traditional public schools in 2000 and 2001, had much smaller reading and mathematics gains. Students who move to traditional public schools from charter schools may or may not have substantial TAAS gains upon returning. Students who moved to traditional public schools in 2002 from charter schools generally had larger TAAS reading and mathematics gains upon returning to traditional public schools. Yet students who moved to traditional public schools in 2001 from charter schools had low TAAS gains. The unknown reasons for student mobility between charter and traditional schools makes it impossible to draw definitive conclusions about student achievement trends. Students who remain in traditional public schools have high TAAS scores. The students who spent all three years in traditional public schools recorded positive TAAS gains, and they had the highest passing rates, 93% passing in reading and 92% passing in mathematics. Given the negative relationship between passing rate gains and initial passing rates, their modest gains in 2002 were impressive. Performance of Secondary Students in Charter Schools Higher percentages of charter school students are enrolled in high schools. An examination of student enrollment patterns shows that, compared to traditional public schools, greater proportions of charter school students are enrolled in high schools. Differences are especially large for grades 9 (17% versus 9%) and 10 (13% versus 7%). The performance of charter school students in grades 7 to 12 lags behind state comparison groups. Compared to analogous state averages, charter school students in grades 7 through 12 have lower course completion rates, lower performance on endofcourse examinations, lower attendance rates, and higher dropout rates. In grades 10 through 12, but not grade 9, more charter than traditional public school students fail to earn sufficient promotion credits. Based on 2002 student-level data, grade 10 exit-level TAAS scores (66% passing in mathematics, 80% passing in reading) are well below state averages (92% passing in mathematics, 95% passing in reading). Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on Traditional School Districts About half of traditional public school officials are unaware of charter schools located in or near their districts boundaries. Although all traditional public schools surveyed were located in the geographic boundaries of one or more charter schools, only 54% of respondents are aware of charter schools in their areas. This may be due, in part, to the fact that some charter schools have identified districts far from actual charter school locations. Interactions between traditional public schools and charter schools are increasing. More than a third of respondents (38%, 51 districts) reported contacts between district and charter school educators, most commonly through interactions at ESC-sponsored events or interactions during regional or statewide meetings or training sessions. Compared to the previous years survey, contacts at such events increased substantially. Nearly half of districts aware of charter schools in their area cite financial effects. Although 54% of district officials report that budget and financial operations are unaffected by charter schools, 46% cite financial effects. Charter schools affect districts financially through losses in average daily attendance (ADA) funding (84%) and federal funding (54%). Large districts and districts with declining enrollments are most likely to cite financial effects. All districts citing lost average daily attendance (ADA) funding of $1 million or more were large districts enrolling more than 10,000 students. Charter schools affect large and mid-size traditional public school districts more than small districts. As Figure 8 shows, more large and mid-size districts report having lost students to charter schools than small school districts. Likewise, more large and mid-size districts report students transferring into their districts from charter schools. The percentages of districts reporting students leaving for and returning from charter schools increased notably for large and mid-size districts between surveys in fall 2001 and 2002.  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Figure 8. Districts Citing Students Leaving for or Returning from Charter Schools. Traditional school districts with declining enrollments are more likely to report effects from charter schools than those with stable or increasing enrollments. Districts with decreasing enrollments are significantly more likely to report that charter schools have affected their budget and financial operationsthese districts more often note losses in ADA funding, federal funding losses, and downsizing of both teaching and administrative staff than districts with stable or increasing enrollments. Charter schools have had little impact on educational approaches and practices of traditional public schools. Although districts have implemented a number of changes in educational approaches, few attribute these changes to charter schools. In general, charter schools are more likely to influence district operations, such as the tracking of students, comparing student achievement in charter and district schools, or increasing marketing efforts to inform parents of district programs. Many traditional public school officials express concerns with charter schools. More than 80% of responding district officials noted concerns about the quality of instruction in charter schools. In addition, approximately two-thirds expressed concerns with charter school grading standards (67%) and apprehensions about special needs students in charter schools receiving an appropriate education (63%). Open-ended comments supported these trends. District officials most often described concerns with educational quality and financial issues. Characteristics of Successful and Challenged Charter Schools Evaluators conducted case studies to provide an in-depth look at a select group of charter schools. The purpose was to explore educational conditions and the instructional practices charter schools employ to meet the specific needs of their students. Charter schools identified for site visits included 13 sites purposefully selected to represent a broad range of performance levels under the Texas standard and alternative educational accountability systems. For comparison purposes, evaluators categorized charter schools as successful (higher performingExemplary, Recognized, or Commended) and challenged (lower accountability ratings). Themes emerging from findings suggest attributes that may foster student academic success in charter schools. Successful charter schools have supportive organizational structures. Successful charter schools typically have a grade span supporting a developmental educational continuum, with the foundation for learning laid in early grades leading to targeted outcomes at higher grade levels. Small school size along with continuity achieved through contact with students over multiple years are frequently viewed as contributors to individualized learning, positive student-teacher relationships, a disciplined learning environment, a vertically-aligned curriculum, and enhanced communication and collaboration. In contrast, challenged charter schools are more likely to serve secondary students who often arrive at the school lacking basic academic skills. Challenged schools have higher student-to-teacher ratios and abbreviated schedules in some schools reduce the available time for student learning. Successful schools enrich their curriculum and instruction. Successful charter schools have high expectations for all students. The states standards-based curriculum is considered a minimum, so schools typically enrich learning through the core knowledge curriculum, service learning, field trips, foreign language, fine arts, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, or extracurricular activities. Challenged schools, on the other hand, are highly committed to student learning, but curriculum and instruction generally focus on basic skills, GED preparation, credit accrual, and remediation of student deficiencies. In successful schools, quality teachers and instruction support students opportunities to learn. Teachers in successful charter schools are more likely to have college degrees, and although less experienced, they are paid higher salaries than teachers in lower performing schools. Classrooms in successful charter schools are more conducive learning environments. Teachers have more available space and instructional resources; arrange their classrooms to facilitate student interactions; create learner-centered environments by combining opportunities for whole-group, independent, and small-group learning, and advance student thinking and problem solving through a greater emphasis on questioning strategies that allow students to verbalize, explain, justify ideas, and reason. In contrast, challenged charter schools are more likely to hire teachers without degrees. Classrooms have limited space and resources, instruction is primarily whole group or students working on assignments independently. Students often listen to teacher presentations or complete worksheets or short-answer exercises. A greater proportion of financial resources supports student learning in successful schools. Successful charter schools invest resources in student learning. A greater proportion of expenditures is allocated for instruction (50% of per-pupil expenditure versus 42% for challenged schools). Additional instructional expenditures include higher salaries for teachers (approximately $8,000 more, on average, than teachers in challenged schools). Challenged charter schools, conversely, invest a greater proportion of their funds in school leadership and general administration (25% of per-pupil expenditure versus 21% for successful schools). In successful schools, parents are committed to academic support. Parents of students attending successful charters almost invariable lend strong support for their childrens academic achievement through actions such as assisting with homework, checking on progress, visiting the school, communicating regularly with teachers, and supporting disciplinary actions. In contrast, in challenged charter schools, parents are expected or required to at least maintain contact with the school. Although parents receive regular progress reports and are usually notified by email or telephone regarding academic or discipline problems, they are less likely to be partners in the educational process. Successful charter schools have strong administrative support and community connections. Successful charter schools have highly engaged administrative leaders who assume many roles to accomplish school goals. These schools also receive strong support from governing boards that generally include a blend of professionals, community members, and parents. Boards provide guidance, financial oversight, and expertise, and assist with fund raising and resource acquisition. In contrast, chief operating officers (e.g., directors/superintendents) of challenged schools spend less time on individual charter campuses because they often supervise multiple charter schools or more than one campus. Challenged schools also have smaller governing boards, which narrows the range of viewpoints and lessens the availability of board expertise and support. Commentary and Policy Implications In Texas, charter school policies have strongly influenced the organizational characteristics of charter schools. The passage of laws in 1997 encouraging the formation of 75 Percent Rule charter schools altered fundamental assumptions underlying the charter concept. The policy shifted the focus from the creation of innovative forms of schooling to the creation of schools for a specifically defined population. Largely as a result of the 75 Percent Rule, distinctly different types of charter schools have emerged in Texas. Besides enrolling different proportions of at-risk students, these schools also have different organizational features. Schools serving higher and lower percentages of at-risk students vary in school characteristics, administrative leadership, revenue and expenditures, teacher quality, educational approach, parents and students reasons for choosing the school, student and parent satisfaction with the school, and most importantly, student academic outcomes. A charter schools ability to attract highly qualified teachers is associated with the preponderance of at-risk students enrolled in the school and the schools academic success. Consistent with past studies, recent statistics show that charter school teachers, on average, are less experienced (5.4 years) than teachers in traditional public schools (11.9 years), and they are less likely to have baccalaureate and advanced degrees. Teachers in charter schools are also paid considerably less than those in traditional public schools, and the annual teacher turnover rate is more than three times the statewide average (53% versus 17%). Results for the current study also reveal that teacher quality varies by charter school characteristics. Charter schools enrolling primarily at-risk students have smaller proportions of teachers with advanced degrees and teaching certificates. In addition, higher performing charter schools (rated as Exemplary, Recognized, or Commended) have a smaller share of beginning teachers, less teachers without a degree, more teachers with advanced degrees, higher teacher salaries, and lower teacher turnover rates. Funding and financial issues pose the greatest obstacle to the establishment and success of charter schools, especially those serving smaller proportions of at-risk students. Results of yearly surveys of charter school directors have consistently identified inadequate finances and facilities as major barriers to charter school operations. Because charter schools do not have taxing authority to generate revenue, more than three-fourths of funding is derived from the state. In 2001-02, the total per-pupil funding for charter schools was $6,762, or $1,089 less than the $7,851 for public schools statewide. Charter schools serving primarily at-risk students received about $700 more per pupil ($7,231 versus $6,526) than charters serving less than 70 percent at-risk students. Schools serving less at-risk students must be more proactive in seeking grants and local donations to support school operations. The autonomy envisioned in the original charter school legislation has been diminished by additional rules and regulations. Excessive rules and regulations, especially those implemented under House Bill 6, according to a number of charter school directors, have made charter schools more like very small independent school districts. Funding limitations make it especially difficult for small organizations to cope with unfunded mandates and administrative requirements. Directors, in general, welcome assistance to address charter school problems that have diminished charter school credibility and led to tighter restrictions. Texas charter schools continue to provide educational choices that accommodate the interests and needs of families and students. The number of students enrolled in charter schools continues to soar. Minority parents, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, are seeking different educational opportunities for their children in charter schools. As a whole, students and parents express high levels of satisfaction with charter schools. Increasingly, it appears that some students and their parents, especially those choosing schools with primarily at-risk students, are seeking charter schools to escape conditions they consider intolerable in traditional public schools. Although charter schools are affecting some districts financially, there is little evidence that charters have promoted improvement in traditional public schools. Mid-size and large districts and districts with declining student enrollments are more likely to report students leaving for charters and to cite financial effects. In general, district officials report minimal changes in programs and practices due to charter schools. The vast majority of public school officials continue to raise concerns about the quality of instruction, grading standards, and appropriateness of educational opportunities in charter schools. Even so, there is an increasing tendency for educators in traditional public schools to refer at-risk students to charter schools. In general, student achievement in charter schools remains a major concern. Even though charter schools are providing school choices welcomed by parents and students, the worth of options made available through many charter schools remains a problem. Across six school years, traditional public schools have outperformed charter schools. Only 14% of charter schools earned the highest Texas accountability ratings in 2001-02 (Exemplary, Recognized, Commended), while 86% received one of the lower ratings. Furthermore, an increasing percentage of charter schools have applied for ratings under the less academically rigorous alternative educational accountability system. Even when more equitable comparisons are made with peer campuses with similar enrollments, school characteristics, and student demographics, TAAS passing and dropout rates are higher and attendance rates are lower for charter schools. Despite uncertain prospects for charter schools overall, results reveal that)*@ARS]d 8 B C D E F S J Ȼu\REhg 5OJQJ\^Jhg OJQJ^J0jhg 5:CJ OJQJU^JmHnHuhg 56OJQJ\]^Jhg 56CJOJQJ]^Jhg 5:CJ OJQJ^Jhg hg :\ hg \ hg CJ\hg CJOJQJ\^Jhg :CJ4\hg 6CJ4\]hg :CJ \$jhg :CJU\mHnHuhg :CJH\)*@AS]^_`abcdq$a$$a$ & 8 B C E F S MNZ de<"="M" !$a$$a$J K NZ 027 @Ae<"="" #%%&'&^&f&g&r&s&w&x&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&񻴻 *hg 5CJ\hg 5CJH*\hg 5CJ\ hg CJH* hg CJhg 56CJ\]hg 5CJ\ hg 5\ hg 6]hg 5OJQJ\^Jhg jhg 0JU;M"N""%%%%% &'&C&D&^& $$Ifa$$Ifx ^&_&kd$$Ifl4r  ; ! : 20 !64 lalf4p2_&g&j&m&s&w& $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$Ifw&x&&&&SM@7 $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$IfkdY$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal&&&&&=7$Ifkd5$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal $$Ifa$ $$If]a$&&&&&&0kd$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$&&&&&& $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$If&&&&&SM@7 $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$$Ifkd$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal&&&&&=7$Ifkd$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal $$Ifa$ $$If]a$&&&&&&0kd$$Iflr  ; ! :0 !64 lal $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $@$If]@a$&&'^'`''''' ((6((((((((()H);**I+J+K+L+f+g+͵~k^~OjKB hg CJUVaJjhg 5CJU\$jhg 5CJU\mHnHuhg 5CJ\hg 5CJ\j_hg 5CJ$U\jB hg 5CJUVhg 5CJ$\jhg 5CJ$U\hg hg 6] hg >* hg CJ\hg 5CJH*\hg 5CJ\hg 56CJ\] hg 5CJ&^''''((();*J+j+,,}$a$ckd$$Ifl4 ! !0 !64 lalf4 @$If]@$If g+h+i+j++,,-...00000000n122c44555555506H6u677889!:;;<=v?????.@ѿѷѨѷёу}у hg CJ hg CJj hg Uj_B hg CJUVaJjhg UjB hg CJUVaJjhg U hg 7hg 5OJQJ\^Jhg hg 6]hg 5CJ\jhg 5CJU\jhg 5CJU\1,.002c45506H6789;<v????????? $$Ifa$$If hx^h h^h` !???@@@@"@(@.@$IfFf& $$Ifa$ .@/@B@F@J@3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Ifs֞ yi# 04 sal.@/@Z@[@@@@@AACADA{A|AAAAABBB+BIBBCCEEEEFF0GGHHIrII:KK=MMzNNOPP7Q)SfSTTQU_UoV}VVVAWNWWgXrYYZü hg 5\ hg ]hg 5CJ\ hg 6 hg 6CJ jhg CJUmHnHu hg 6]hg 5OJQJ\^J hg CJhg 6CJ] hg CJhg @J@N@R@V@Z@ $$Ifa$Z@[@j@r@z@3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd)$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salz@@@@@ $$Ifa$@@@@@3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd^*$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 sal@@@@@ $$Ifa$@@@@@3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd&+$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 sal@@A AA $$Ifa$AA"A'A,A3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 sal,A1A7A=ACA $$Ifa$CADAWA]AcA3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salcAiAoAuA{A $$Ifa${A|AAAA3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd~-$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salAAAAA $$Ifa$AAAAA3-$$ $$Ifa$$IfkdF.$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salAAAAA $$Ifa$AAAAA3-$$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salAAB BB $$Ifa$BB+BIBC31-)kd/$$Ifs֞ yi# 04 salCEEEFF0GH:K=M>MyNzNNPP(S)STTVVWWrYsY$a$ \ V ^V` sYZZ\\]^^)`*`bbcceeUhVhhkkemfmoprr  Z[\\]F]]^N_)`*```bbcde+fMfRfVfdffUhVhh"ikwkfmmmmmmmm_njnnnynoNopeqrrssttMuvwwwUyyyszzz{t}u}}ؿӧӰhg 6]aJ hg aJhg 5CJ\hg 56CJ\]hg 6\] hg \hg 5OJQJ\^Jhg 56OJQJ\]^Jhg hg 6]BrtwUytzu};Nmф !(8S $$Ifa$$If$If^x}}I~~~(P ;NOijklm ф (STU}~݅ޅ 567bcdnpʆˆŽԸhg 6CJ\]hg CJH*\hg 57CJ hg CJ\ hg 5CJhg 5CJ\ hg >*j0hg Uj-B hg CJUVaJjhg U hg 6]hg 5OJQJ\^J hg aJhg hg \4STUZ_dinRLCCCCC $$Ifa$$Ifkd7$$If4Fp !`pN N  %%%0 !    2 4 af4p%%%nsx}~vgZZ $e$If]ea$ !$If^tkd=$$If40p !p0 !2 4 af4$IfFf; $$Ifa$ …ƅɅͅхՅم݅ޅ $If^FfGC A$If^AFf@ $$If]a$ $e$If]ea$ !%),/256>ADGJPV\bFfI $e$If]ea$ $If^FfF $$If]a$bcpsvy| $$Ifa$FfrP $$If]a$ $e$If]ea$ $If^Ff&M ÆƆʆwjjjw]]] $$If]a$ $e$If]ea$ $$Ifa$ $If^tkd^R$$If40p !p0 !2 4 af4 ʆˆֆچކ  (Ff+[FfW $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $e$If]ea$ $If^FfT "=@ABJw/1UW>(ABPTŽގt (?@Ő˻ٓيٱي~thg 57>*\hg 56CJ\]hg 5CJ\hg 56CJ]hg 5>*\ hg 7 hg 6]hg hg CJ hg CJH*hg CJH*] hg CJ] hg 6CJ hg 5CJ hg CJhg 6CJ\] hg CJ\hg 57CJ-(*-047:=ABzB$If$If !xH^HFf^ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ $e$If]ea$Ž<6$Ifkd`$$Ifl\ m F  (04 lalp( $$Ifa$$If\kda$$Ifl404 lalf4 lf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdsb$$Ifl\ m F04 lal*/4:lf]]] $$Ifa$$IfkdDc$$Ifl\ m F04 lal:;CHMSlf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$Ifl\ m F04 lalSTchmslf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$Ifl\ m F04 lalstlf$Ifkde$$Ifl\ m F04 lal $$Ifa$$If\kdlf$$Ifl404 lalf4Ï̏я֏܏lf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdg$$Ifl\ m F04 lal܏ݏlf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdg$$Ifl\ m F04 lallf]]] $$Ifa$$Ifkdh$$Ifl\ m F04 lal ?@*1ESlfd`XRII $$Ifa$$If !x !kdXi$$Ifl\ m F04 lal*/MU"TS[swz{|}AB:›\dz{|ǝ˝cgکԩԩԩԩԠęک~hg 5OJQJ\^J hg 7aJ hg CJ] hg 5\hg 57CJ hg 6CJhg 56CJH*\] hg CJ\ hg 5CJhg 6CJ] hg CJ hg CJhg 56CJ\]hg 5CJ\hg hg 6]1STUZ_dkpuWNNNNNNN $$Ifa$kdj$$IfH4FV#  0#    4 HaHf4puz $$If]a$$IfFf m $$Ifa$ kdo$$IfH ^ VN #         0#$$$$4 HaH’ǒ̒ђ֒ے $$If]a$$If kdp$$IfH ^ VN #0#$$$$4 HaH  $$If]a$$If  kd~q$$IfH ^ VN #0#$$$$4 HaH%*/49>CHL $$If]a$$If LM kdVr$$IfH ^ VN #0#$$$$4 HaHMT".Tv $$Ifa$$If !x $Ifkd.s$$Ifl4r@   !`@ T`8T` 2%%%%%04 lalf4p2%%%%%  $h$If]ha$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$$IfFf w $$Ifa$FL3-$ $$Ifa$$IfkdIy$$Ifl֞@ j  !@ **8**04 lalLV`fpz $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$z|3-$ $$Ifa$$Ifkdxz$$Ifl֞@ j  !@ **8**04 lalėΗؗ $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$ؗڗ3-$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd{$$Ifl֞@ j  !@ **8**04 lal  $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$8;3-$ $$Ifa$$Ifkd|$$Ifl֞@ j  !@ **8**04 lal;@EHMR $h$If]ha$ $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ $$If]a$RSsAB311+ !kd}$$Ifl֞@ j  !@ **8**04 lalB:ڛ  $ !$Ifa$  !$If !x!  !$IfkdB$$Iflr lT!  204 lalp2!&+056KG<  !$Ifkd$$Iflr lT! 04 lal$ !$If]a$KOSW[\{|GAA !kd$$Iflr lT! 04 lal$ !$If]a$|Lʣ $$Ifa$$If$$If !xgL"ȣ"$.6@FG UYpq˥ϥ"&ѦҦн독{hg 5CJ\]jhg U]jB hg CJUVjhg U]hg 57CJ\ hg 6CJ hg CJhg 6CJ]hg 56CJ\ hg CJhg 56CJ\]hg 5CJ\ hg ] hg 6 hg 6]hg 0 !"$).46RIIII>I $$$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kdJ$$Ifl4FTJ`T{ {  %%%0    4 lalf4p%%%6;@FGOUZ_cinsxyFfFf$IfFf $$$Ifa$ $$Ifa$qѦKL{˩'7A $$Ifa$ !x$ !X^X` !  !H^H  !H^H KLM{˩ԩة~iqӭԭ<Ecg`dMNγմ6Ӷ׶h3y͹ƼƳԔԔԔԇ؇ԇ hg ] hg 6hg 6\] hg \ hg 5 hg CJhg 6CJ] hg CJhg 5CJ\hg 56CJ] hg 5CJ hg 6]hg hg 5OJQJ\^Jhg OJQJ\^J hg 7hg 5CJ\]3ABJRZ\90000 $$Ifa$kdW$$If\ a#    (0p#2 V4 ap(\afkpuv~ $$If]a$\kd[$$Ifa#p#0p#2 s4 a$IfFf $$Ifa$ $$If]a$ kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aƪͪӪتݪ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ kdI$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a  $$If]a$ $$Ifa$  kdu$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a&-5;@EJOS $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ ST kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aT[ckoty~ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ kd͡$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aëʫѫիګ߫ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ kd%$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a "',0 $$If]a$ $$Ifa$\kdQ$$Ifa#p#0p#2 s4 a$If 01 kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a19AHNSX]ae $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ ef kd?$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 afnu| $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ kdk$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aŬʬά $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ άϬ kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aϬ֬ެ $$If]a$ $$Ifa$  kdê$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a #(-16 $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ 67 kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 a7>ELPUZ_dh $$If]a$ $$Ifa$ hi kd$$If  qa#0p#$$$$2 s4 aiԭNմhxy#$O> !hx^h !$zu@O^i>04= 48MN 0 8 hR}36] hg 5\hg 5OJQJ\^Jhg OJQJ^J hg ] hg aJhg 5CJ\jGhg Uj$B hg CJUVaJjhg U hg 6 hg 6]hg <><= 0 23(  !d8 d8[$\$[$\$ 23(rUZ !'()+,2356789оЈqjQB hg CJUVaJjhg Uhg 5CJ\ hg CJh+#0JCJmHnHuhg 0JCJjhg 0JCJU hg 0Jjhg 0JUjh v Uh v jhg 0JUUhg 56CJ\]hg 5CJ\hg hg 6], a small group of charter schools are performing well. Lessons learned through case studies of these charter schools are relevant to the improvement of charter schools overall.  Center for Education Reform (2003). About Charter Schools. www.edreform.com (retrieved 4/8/03).     PAGE   PAGE 21 Figure 2. Charter school campuses by student population served, 2001-02.  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s   )*+789$a$$a$&`#$hg 5CJ\hg jhg Ujhg U90P1h/ =!"#$ % Dp90P1h/ =!"#$% Dp`!9~ O1M_,9؎ hxY}LUe~~}! (C6DI>mWє9}\@Yf"c8Q&*Z5Yckdݞs/@ƽ{8+p @"r lM1M4I$ ^/@dOڌHtw/ӦWdAH1d|G1{qN&O/I2EOSd4~VVD7+bzz=M 8q'1uqY8~Gc%AvA@;Sr%Rr 5E`%Pr#%_Kx xxLlBgn{uxxxxxX;눵U[I YM{崽ZKJZx$ WfDeNTEWމ]QcOD;\y 3S2c-,gea6&K˝|-"oEda!X@V |[@ ^>#ydG}dϭ[2%"e3-6ßOjßx?cNuNS!яNs-3M^&UoF{?o*' s;7:,3 IXGzw &l97/G:OeIzUznɝ=D 5w.{Υ4NE_"=t C*{C{%?ۦ ={8ϖr O*oԓǓ˭k U23*C{}}󵸲ĿFXƼg*>kGֈ=C<8{TVŵGXqfWb@E7:7 ]qz9=_u:㮸XqJ?"O8k?+CoVG򋄡_",6lW$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l4 20 !65 5555:4alf4p2$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:4al$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:4al$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:4al$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:/ 4al$$Ifl!vh5 5555:#v #v#v#v#v::V l0 !65 5555:/ / 4al$$Ifl!vh5 !#v !:V l40 !65 !/ / 4alf4LDd  J  C A? "2z6x $U`!z6x $U.#NJ*PxZ]L\E>sw(%"-"i.~`4 탁 `&$mHMI|A냴M|7-$HM}2h4j3;wvveK3sg|s!`^P@$9b$ cOaA x0|H".Q u k`U5"HjS0ߝ;5>#i,ojSv>-9*#h?FįyO*L[|8 L(٘Y~HN223-M=f4"LxVrG9X~StEřڊ-ՂcF~TcjM*N,X ^0ȿ%]<*2/- Sq.Z;udVi)ku4UcQRGw ɑةX`3K׃k|LӶcJ$7OVoO=x Rb"V5I"kM!PĶt޻  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~    ,dH !"#$%&'()*+6./012345P89:;<=>?@ABCDEFGIJKLMNObRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`aldefghijkopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry5 F,+6V*Data IWordDocument4ObjectPool785V,+6V_1122028216F85V85VOle PRINT.CompObjd  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ADHLPTX[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q 8 I 5   ''  "Arial---"Arial-------"System-'- -'- - "- $UUUy52 "-UUU "---'--- ---'--- }---'--- T---'--- L "- & "-- 5B( #.#.^Zd^Zs^Zy^Za-- !#2- ---&4-$22-&-- 5B( #.#.@ceba-- !'1- ---&4-$-&-- 5B( #.#.@ &**J-- !2Y- ---&4-$YYY-&-- 5B( #.#.  &**J-- !+1- ---&4-$77-&-- 5B( #.#. -- !G2t- ---&4-$ttt-&-- 5B( #.#.-- !p1K_- ---&4-$_KK__K-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !#12- ---&4-$2cc22-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !'1- ---&4-$-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwww-- !1- ---&4-$-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwww-- !d1W7- ---&4-$7WhWh77W-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !1"- ---&4-$"""-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !1- ---&4-$----'--- T---'---  "-U -UU""UU44::---'--- ------'--- 1V  2 _17----'--- -----'--- R  2 [19----'--- -----'--- D V  2 \180----'--- -----'--- bV2  2 _817----'--- -----'--- R  2 [19----'--- -----'---   2 99----'--- -----'--- Pp.  2 4174----'--- -----'---   2 200----'--- -----'---   2 241----'--- -----'--- R  2 X89----'--- -----'--- m2  2 ;160----'--- -----'--- 1N  2 W146----'--- ----'---   2 0 2 =50 2 ~100 2 p~150 2 ~200 2 ~250 2 =~300---'--- ---'---  2 1996-97 2 1997-98 2 E1998-99 2 1999-00 2 2000-01 2 K2001-02 ---'--- -----'--- y93 "Arial- 2 =Number-----'--- - z52---'--- w74---'--- w74 "- &-- 5B( #.#.-- !H?- -- -&- `WH?-.2 a`Charter Schools   .---'---  w74---'---  w74 "- &-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww- - !H-  - --&-  `H- .*2 aCharter School Campuses   #.---'--- w74---'--- - -'  '  'ObjInfo Workbook-_1122100811" F85V85VOle  A@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial= ,##0.00_ A@` J ` J ` 0b` 7j` w 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3& STU1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-02Charter Schools1@3@@V@@b@d@f@ Charter School Campuses1@3@X@e@i@ n@WY(#= >X4@@3d' 3Q "Charter SchoolsQQQ3_ O  f- % i@za+.( 90% MMd 4E4 3Q 2Charter School CampusesQQQ3_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D$% M@3O&Q4$% M@3O&Q4FA9 3O 6 3 b#M& 43*#M&4% SWMZ3O1&Q Number'4523 M NM43" Y593O\^8% M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444% lsx+M3O&Q'4% +M3O&Q'4% +M3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'44 PRINT 7 CompObjdObjInfo WorkbookMh< ^    yE''  "Arialw@ bwbw0----------------------- "System 0-'- yE-'- yE-'- Y% - &-- -B( -$SSSSSSTTTUUUVWWXYY[ \ \]__a%c%c+d1f1f7i=k=kCmHoHoNrTuTuZw_z_ze}kkpuu{  ##)// 5 ; ;AGGMSSY__ekkqww}  !""###$$$%%%%%%%$$$###""!   &&,228 > > DIIOUU[``fllqvv|{ ---&-$SSSSSSTTTUUUVWWXYY[ \ \]__a%c%c+d1f1f7i=k=kCmHoHoNrTuTuZw_z_ze}kkpuu{  ##)// 5 ; ;AGGMSSY__ekkqww}  !""###$$$%%%%%%%$$$###""!   &&,228 > > DIIOUU[``fllqvv|{S-&-- -B( @@-$@{uupkke__ZTTNH H C ==711+%%   !!"##$$$%%%&&&&&&&%%%$$$##"!!| vvpjjd^^XRRLFF@::4 . . (""  |vvqll|fy`y`v[tUtUqOnInIlDj>j>h8e2e2c,b&b&` ^^\[[ZXXWVVUTTTSSSRRRRRRRRRRRSSSTTTUVVW}XwXwZq[k[k\e^_^_`YbSbScMeGeGhAj;j;l5n/n/q)t#t#vyy|    }zzw"u"u(r.o.o4m:k:k@iFfFfLdRcRcXa^_^_d]j\j\p[vYvY|XWWVUUUTTTSSSSSS ---&-$A{uupkke__ZTTNH H C ==711+%%   !!"##$$$%%%&&&&&&&%%%$$$##"!!| vvpjjd^^XRRLFF@::4 . . (""  |vvqll|fy`y`v[tUtUqOnInIlDj>j>h8e2e2c,b&b&` ^^\[[ZXXWVVUTTTSSSRRRRRRRRRRRSSSTTTUVVW}XwXwZq[k[k\e^_^_`YbSbScMeGeGhAj;j;l5n/n/q)t#t#vyy|    }zzw"u"u(r.o.o4m:k:k@iFfFfLdRcRcXa^_^_d]j\j\p[vYvY|XWWVUUUTTTSSSSSS{---'-- yEo oX   `--'-- yE-------'-- d  2 y59%**@2  141 charter ****.**2 =campuses**C..***---'-- yE-------'-- [  2 <41%**@2 @ 100 charter ****.**2 campuses**C..***---'-- yE--  ---'---  ---'---  -&-- -B( -- !//- ---&- -.:2 "Serve 70% or more at-risk students2*)***@.C.*****..*.*.---'---  ---'---  -&-- -B( -- !//E- ---&- uE-.=2 x$Serve less than 70% at-risk students2*)****.*.**@****..*.*.---'---  ---'--- yE--' yE '  ' Z$@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=@,##0.00_ Z$@` J ` J ` !` ^ 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3& $I&STU+"Serve 70% or more at-risk students-$Serve less than 70% at-risk students EastD@M@WYd((#= T (>X4`f3d 3Q  EastQQQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 43_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q  WestQQQ3_4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D$% M063O&Q4$% M063O&Q4FA*&3O3" 4 03O4 $% M3O&Q423 M NM44$% M063OQ '43_ M NM  MMd 444% 2 M:3O?>3&Q 459% 141 charter campuses'4% RM:3O>3&Q 441% 100 charter campuses'4% M03O&Q '44  FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5_1122028319 F85V85VOle BPRINTQh!CompObjCd,2  5   ''  "Arial-------------"System-'- -'- -'- -'- -'- 2Q-'- 1I "- & "-- 5B( #.#.vGWvG.G,CT-- !Zq- ---&4-$qwqw00q-&-- 5B( #.#.@@PsCXCWVi-- !ZzV- ---&4-$Vzz0V0Vz-&-- 5B( #.#.  -- !`Z- ---&4-$00-&-- 5B( #.#.-- !Z- ---&4-$""00-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwww-- !CYw- ---&4-$w0w0w-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !Yg- ---&4-$g g 00g-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwww-- !Yl- ---&4-$lBlB00l-&-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-- !Y<"- ---&4-$"<{<{0"0"<- "--'-- 2Q--'--  "-R 000AARR00<0<0<L0L<0<0--'-- ----'--   2 20---'-- ----'--   2 58---'-- ----'-- 5j2  2 951---'-- ----'-- {5g  2 @n38---'-- ----'-- e;-  2 F440---'-- ----'-- S4   2 41---'-- ----'-- w1  2 <42---'-- ----'--   2 14---'-- --'--   2 0 2 25 2 )50 2 75 2 :}100--'-- --'--  2 R6African  2  American# 2 RaHispanic  2 RWhite#  2 REco2  Disadvantaged  --'-- ----'-- x2 "Arial- 2 <Percent----'-- - ---'--- ---'---  "- &-- 5B( #.#.-- !q- -- -&- q-.2 Charter .---'---  ---'---   "- &-- 5B( #.#.wwwwww- - !-  - --&-  - .2 State  .---'--- ---'--- --'  '  'ObjInfoEWorkbookc_1122026335F85V85VOle F A@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=,##0.00_ A@` J ` J ` 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STUAfrican AmericanHispanicWhiteEco DisadvantagedCharterD@C@4@M@State,@E@D@I@WY<-w= N >X4 l:3d( 3Q CharterQQQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 4E4 3Q StateQQQ3_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D$% M@3O&Q4$% M@3O&Q4FA,[ 3O< 3 b#M&43*Y@9@#M&4% ]*MZ3O1&Q Percent'43" ~ |3O} % M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444% QlM3O&Q'4% 3lM3O0&Q'4% M3O&Q'4%  ;lM3O&Q'4% ElM3O0&Q'4% lM3O*&Q'4% M3O&Q'44 PRINTnxOCompObjGdObjInfoIWorkbook-:0 ' 5   6''  "Arial---"Arial---------"System-'- 6-'- 61`-'- 6-'- &-'- XQ-'- WI "- & "-- 5B( #.#.   -- !2- ---& -$22VV-&-- 5B( #.#.   -- ! 2Ju- ---& -$uJJVuVuJ-&-- 5B( #.#.@@$-- !g2- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.  0 2 9 < > D  -- !2O_- ---& -$_OOV_V_O-&-- 5B( #.#.UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-- !12- ---& -$2ccV2V2-&-- 5B( #.#.UUUwUUUUUUwUUU-- !1n- ---& -$nnVVn-&-- 5B( #.#.UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-- !|1- ---& -$MMVV-&-- 5B( #.#.wUUUݻUUUwUUUݻUUU+-- !1- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.}-- !2c- ---& -$cVcVc-&-- 5B( #.#.}-- !2x- ---& -$x x VVx-&-- 5B( #.#.-- !r2M- ---& -$MVMVM-&-- 5B( #.#.ww-- !2E- ---& -$EEVVE-&-- 5B( #.#.3fff̙3fff̙--- !2- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.ffffffff--- !2 - ---& -$ <<V V -&-- 5B( #.#.fff3fff3--- !r2- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.ffffffff$ -- ! 2J- ---& -$J&J&VVJ-&-- 5B( #.#.]wwwuWwww--- !1- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.ꮮݾwwwwݺwwww--- !1<- ---& -$<mmV<V<-&-- 5B( #.#.Wwww]իwww---- !g1- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.wݯwww꺺wݮwww**-- !1?&- ---& -$&?W?WV&V&?-&-- 5B( #.#.ffffffff&-- !2- ---& -$**VV-&-- 5B( #.#.3fff̙3fff̙&-- !2m- ---& -$mVmVm-&-- 5B( #.#.ffffffffC-- !g2- ---& -$VV-&-- 5B( #.#.fff3fff32 1998-9-- !+2+W- ---& -$W++VWVW+- "--'-- XQ--'-- 6 "- R V-VVTTRRVVbVbPVPbVb:V:bV--'--  6-----'--  1  2 27---'--  6----'--  Cu  2 {52---'--  6----'--    2 20---'--  6----'--  H _  2 e51---'--  6----'--  b~2  2 829---'--  6----'--  L  2 "24---'--  6----'--  Z  2 c36---'--  6----'--  ec  2 ni34---'--  6----'--  }M  2 S22---'--  6----'--  >  2 53---'--  6----'--  ;P   2 Y38---'--  6----'--    2 22---'--  6----'--  C%  2 52---'--  6----'--  lU<  2 ^B37---'--  6----'--    2 20---'--  6----'--  8V&  2 ,54---'--  6----'--  )F  2 O40---'--  6----'--  Pm  2 Ys38---'--  6----'--    2 20---'--  6----'--  $W  2 ]58---'--  6----'--  d)  2 245---'--  6----'--  b '  2 043---'--  6----'--  U  2 ^39---'--  6----'--  g,  2 541---'--  6---'--  7  2 >0 2 25 2 <50 2 75 2 :~100--'--  6--'--  7 2 xAfrican American   # 2 xHispanic  2 xMWhite# !2 xGEco Disadvantaged   --'--  6----'--  y3 "Arial- 2 =Percent----'--  6- 1`---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#.  -- - !s-  - - -&-  s- .2 1996-97 .---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#.wUUUݻUUUwUUUݻUUU- - !A-  - - -&-  YA- .2 b1997-98 .---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#. 2 20- - !-  - - -&-  '- .2 01998-99 .---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#.3fff̙3fff̙ - - !-  - - -&-  - .2 1999-00 .---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#.ծ}wwwWuwww--- - !-  - - -&-  - .2 2000-01 .---'---  /b---'---  /b "-  &-- 5B( #.#.3fff̙3fff̙- - - !y-  - - -&-  y- .2 2001-02 .---'---  /b---'---  6-- ' 6 '  'MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5 A@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=!:,##0.00_ A@` J ` J ` g ` ] 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3& STUAfrican AmericanHispanicWhiteEco Disadvantaged1996-97;@J@4@I@1997-98=@F@8@B@1998-99A@E@6@J@1999-00C@C@6@J@2000-01D@B@4@K@2001-02D@C@4@M@WY P -w= $>X4??3d 3Q 1996-97QQQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 4E4 3Q 1997-98QQQ3_ O  f- % i@za߿ߝXo( UUUU30% MMd 4E4 3Q 1998-99QQQ3_ O  fC ; i@zaB 猠K^\( Dotted diamond MMd 4E4 3Q 1999-00QQQ3_ O   f5 - i@za.[]- ='>( ffTrellis MMd 4E4 3Q 2000-01QQQ3_ O  f1 ) i @zaԑ]>]F( wwWeave MMd 4E4 3Q 2001-02QQQ3_ O  f5 -  i@za.[]- ='>( ffTrellis MMd 4E4D$% M@3O&Q4$% M@3O&Q4FALz 1 3Oj 3 b#M&43*Y@9@#M&4% PMZ3O1&Q Percent'43" ) l3O (% M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444% M3O&Q'4% otLM3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% x_tLM3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% MtLM3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% tLM3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'44 _1122101293(F85V85VOle JPRINT *CompObjKd4 r -    ''  "Arialw@q !bwbw0-"Arialw@p !bwbw0------------------------------------ "System 0-'-  -'-  ? -'-  -'- ` -'- n-'- }- &-- -B( -- !T- ---&-$-&-- -B( @@-- !7T- ---&-$BB-&-- -B( -- !T- ---&-$hh-&-- -B( @@-- !T:- ---&-$:::-&-- -B(   -- !oTN_- ---&-$_NN__N-&-- -B( -- !T- ---&-$-&-- -B( ww-- !GTv- ---&-$vpvpv-&-- -B( ww-- !TB- ---&-$BBB-&-- -B( ww-- !Th- ---&-$hhh-&-- -B( ww-- !7S- ---&-$-&-- -B( -- !T- ---&-$-&-- -B( -- !T- ---&-$-----'-- n--'--  -  tt.t.gtgtl  FFll--'--   ----'--  wH  2 71%%---'--   ----'--  ?Y  2 d46%%---'--   ----'--  .  2 A97%%---'--   ----'--     2 54%%---'--   ----'--  !  2 /34%---'--   ----'--  l4  2 ?61%%---'--   ----'--  n  2 66%%---'--   ----'--  r  2 59%%---'--   ----'--  X  2 39%%---'--   ----'--  %u  2 834%%---'--   ----'--  GO  2 ZZ29%%---'--   ----'--  R)  2 441%%---'--   --'--     2 001% 2  25%% 2  50%% 2 = 75%% 2 u100!%%%--'--   --'--    2 Charter0)%% 2 Q1998%%%%2 Charter0)%% 2 Q1999%%%%2 Charter0)%% 2 Q2000%%%%2 Charter0)%% 2 QD2001%%%%2 =Charter0)%% 2 Qj2002%%%%2 State-%% 2 Q2002%%%%--'--   ----'--  c "Arialw@s "bwbw0- 2 tPercent----'--   -- ? ---'---  ; ---'---  ; - &-- -B( - - !00-  - --&-  -.2  Standard3+//+/.---'--- ; ---'--- ; - &-- -B( -- !00S- -- -&- S-.'2  Alternative Education5+/+)+3//++//.---'---  ; ---'---   -- '   '  'ObjInfo!MWorkbook_1122034820.$F5V5VOle N Z$@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial= ,##0.00_ Z$@` J ` J ` c ` ^ 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&$$STU Charter 1998 Charter 1999 Charter 2000 Charter 2001 Charter 2002 State 2002StandardM@Q@P@N@G@@X@Alternative EducationD@=@A@C@K@@WY(#= p>X4远3d 3Q StandardQQQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 4E4 3Q .Alternative EducationQQQ3_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D $% M063O&Q4$% M063O&Q4FAnk 3O 3 b#M&43*Y@9@#M&4% UMZ3O(&Q Percent'43" # 5[3O# 5% M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444% InM:3O'&Q'4% nM:3O&Q'4% ^nM:3O&Q'4% M03O&Q'4% nM:3O &Q'4% nM:3O &Q'4% $nM:3O &Q'4% nM:3O &Q'4% M03O&Q'44 o(     c !"#$%&'A*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@PCDEFGHIJKLMNOmRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abefghijklpqrstuvwxyz{|}~nVjn;;sΙ337x,,>N­jAKݧfҴjYsvt>o`0F 1Y2-=]AS=hV;|Kgr2YFG:* 1_:z+M.媕 k4@L+M!֕ *AsN`k0lo[SCJz 2LD2!n%N v0h#N-k&1}~b\4q 4'[׌/щ/p;ppr P،V|lB3686(>/~c=~ć؋uCB WD#Fu&@r:]Kk(=CoI]s2mX/ҦR,m_5,g մf>a`GPc̐fJ&ܔp`z˞D*wN- >A\+g~(2j5Ybur= &8HF16WL1osOO:2N# =eJ}ϣjfi@埛O+d߲'f~56# t5(9}r}brZP$ o҆k1'wZIJHeΤ,47ń1hw~)Rάl>Ÿ׈;y$N^KVhON#(%zC={sݘ*٬x}Oz= r=>Oy)  SLRBέ4W7~=jI58.rk8#߾k26PhIı*3L"/'q)S%'3~'0tEnjNDܕc|W:BT_I?vٲ>Dd rJ  C A? "2 d#i|`!t d#i`!}F$BxZ]h\EϽV֟j-DMbE,f}P)d,(%!?}>X|A%T/PJER}(**HgΝfo~ͮfgΙ3sܙ;+b6A> ).RĹ%,Ͱ"󥻘˴<~R?ˬg,/ǖL!}MjtّCX֖ܘURe9Е~/J2?=55U֏lB#3'4+o5Wҭ+EZnF"'^I7%B3L/ g)vs5ݓ"8J:U#N._.u_{upO^X:YoTɸ9wވ^^ut2:.wr0cx3.4ݴ-^. ,k}<&bR=m>!{l+޾ cַ}4><ߺ[ѷWq}ۏo-PKۛ+b}m6A"br9&{[2&1n9\ƭ}q#|;ٷV{~_R =KI{޽ٻ>^V o=rkvҾ._Ae1K{c)_e!wq ĔOY;;X,f7!\jWR]Sz~4_.nPŇ|10jQYp,Od'Hn I5v]bg!l3Lxl*74cc&h$:o Cb@9Ŭ~.u 6ܢ$C_;,nuI)UNyH}tw [M??&  ع}YFkR]mWp{9-su+~,jT#2UCDxIU_R&GdcpDB񽼈L-!"wE*"˽,ĸz_:ߓv͓ _ 2Ty9hp+ Dd jJ  C A? "2 a;t xT\ P`!T a;t xTfO3Q:&" x]Lwva[h܏!jURJdjS{! aiiZ r>$hK*%i 8r֮R5vD+P{laxܙߜ0s/%@@h/5ZDTk!Zosskdg˶QFv[75cvddq1iwkIJF;e#4]ͧvȣXd,x}* q[czha?b__v3t<2f\頎 (-sBud% #‡YQZm]O:',L^m!{nBZYYݟM?702o┹hU-lLYTfrۈPWɉ<>g#P* Mu}\QՋȼ3c'G+#0YZ[&REᬯR7tZ]~n%'.0N:U4s']=Bt}K N:;699jcccfttT.MH DtVb($DS.{$' jwMgzH=E<ƦJt3J Ɣa [-BAG=+t^lktllL.7==}&ϑyO7M鬽݌_ERz>NPl:k it/Mg핾N*] {趒yOh8+}н"׫&n/;JtEUgI;KƄ4W[n)yOWjnݭV4)v}>ٳ})̰鬽ݡ0ͱ&3<22"!黧{>P鬽_otBtϒyO7&΢Mg핾?% %]J?g9"KY=t߼%s$;"};)(wMt[H;#Zդ鬽_)rp7 OdoWh"tyOju6W덮[[NϺ_`Y{+DfnЕ{Mg_A]EsPѴOtc}Ӎjp7+};]sl&"K0{v\3ǩ8(Q1u|R+Gm1d؟(;oN[eV~*+̚eQv92ޱޱv XeYeYeFFnâvx)wgxvфмeU ZU[o{_+>Ȯ8ֈk[MUc{ c)>o vWDt(F8 < 鐓q1h8pzqɝA)!\تw1sx!'✬yҢIN9{'؎AD+㐓𡑓g)';s2s&okB(q{@m0'yyl'{Ƭot2_NLElN{Ep/"]o/8^o޾Z="±} 1@48l\o5A;v 7bg88ݻ@E*0?$~n7ޗ+3*v9{L%ӛxxsRʚUYM"[*6r]3f+>ȵϲ±5%۷=+˰*ضıᱷ&_[7˻)᳾ܩ+ｏ&lԱڳ5=尪*{a!춡B]؆$A}Nn]>a%Fɠ|p%.3>awF$1dP`~>ѯV c۴ .uWu .E}H?]&__3J7/] ٳm/{;g۩ӾvIqLﵒJӾvE?1J>s6L؍Ѿvb _1Jމ]-;BowRn>~ˏ[(lofXVQc삒]P}JO:CjcqM ~n씒+ٸ–^)%;dD.M#'suf| \%p~ils E[s_ksۉb3zM#,M|!>g9+\}CہG,/2zPɣe~G#~(zG^=ѻFT$xkl b~"zH}FvB} ;{؏?0>n -|r(S$ r~ >Ǥ<[x#E~@6 MNK֘ɞdRUI3PJ]h \G7?PfA݆s?zWmkkoTiW[5_fT*kW K6_m:[{}WPq֒d;E/(k9<-WnOm mĨmKX^ bT% ڸ2qψxD'}_~t|Qu'D͝9ڋopSp p-wO"I8z<ߍ_xLhK% y(GB 1Ϭ2<}֕;+_];[/:;Fw[˕w*z{hHȬzoxW?βU9Tb/۫};yLn:M>$$If!vh5p5N 5N #vp#vN :V 4 %%%0 !+5p5N /  / / / / 2 44 af4p%%%8$$If!v h5p55555555 #vp#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V 4 Z%%%%%%%%%0 !+5p55555555 / / / 2 44 af4pZ%%%%%%%%%kd8$$If4 p  ! p Z%%%%%%%%%0 !$$$$2 4 af4pZ%%%%%%%%%$$If!vh5p5#vp#v:V 40 !5p5/ / / 2 44 af4^$$If!v h5p55555555 #vp#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V 0 !5p55555555 / / / 2 44 akd>$$If p  !p0 !$$$$2 4 aY$$If!v h5p55555555 #vp#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V 0 !5p55555555 / / 2 s2 44 akdA$$If p  !p0 !$$$$2 s2 4 aP$$If!v h5p55555555 #vp#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v :V 0 !5p55555555 / / 2 44 akd>- &-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww--- !8- --- &4-$-  "--'-- .K--'-- \ "- L !!LL,WWhh,,--'--  \----'--  y  2 74---'--  \----'--  l  2 u77---'--  \----'--  y_I  2 hO80---'--  \----'--  >R  2 [83---'--  \----'--  |A  2 J87---'--  \----'--  R  2 [83---'--  \----'--  R  2 [83---'--  \----'--  v[F  2 dL81---'--  \----'--  :[   2 d81---'--  \----'--  _  2 h80---'--  \----'--  )  2 69---'--  \----'--    2 66---'--  \----'--  2f  2 o74---'--  \----'--  l<  2 B60---'--  \--'--  ]  2 0 2 w25 2 50 2 75 2 8100--'--  \--'--  ]  2 3rd  2 4th  2 5th  2 f6th  2 *7th  2 8th  2 10th --'--  \----'--  |A 2 J Grade Level   ---'--  \----'--  |A "Arial-2 IPercent Passing----'--  \- K---'---  I---'---  I "-  &-- 5B( #.#. - - !]-  - - -&-  r]- .2 zReading .---'---  I---'---  I "-  &-- 5B( #.#.wwwwwwww-$- - !-  - - -&-  - .2   Mathematics  .---'---  I---'---  \- - ' \ '  'MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5MSGraph.Chart.89q FMicrosoft Graph 2000GBiff5 A@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=;,##0.00_ A@` J ` '` J 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&STU 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 10thReading@Q@R@@S@T@T@U@T@ MathematicsN@R@T@T@@T@@T@P@WY(((#= p>X4迆3d 3Q ReadingQQQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 4E4 3Q  MathematicsQQQ3_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D$% M@3O&Q4$% M@3O&Q4FAKl 3O J 3 b#M&43*Y@9@#M&4%  $[M3OF&Q  Grade Level'4% fMZ3O^&Q "Percent Passing'43" |3O% M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444%  }[M3O&Q'4% K}[M3O&Q'4% M3O&Q'4% w}[M3O&Q'4% }[M3O&Q'4% \}[M3O &Q'4% M3O&Q'44 _1122102564*F5V5VOle RPRINT),)\/CompObjSd;w  -   ''  "Arialw@ bwbw0-"Arialw@ bwbw0------------------------ "System 0-'- -'- ---'--  {`B .    XX  --'-- `B .--'-- --'-- k --'--  --'--  -  &-- -B( -- !y- ---&-$-&-- -B( - - !y-  - --&-$  -&-- -B( - - !Xy2-  - --&-$2 2 2-&-- -B(  - - !gy# -  - --&-$ # #   #-&-- -B( ww- - !hz"-  - --&-$"""-&-- -B( ww- - !z -  - --&-$   -&-- -B( ww- - !+y_ -  - --&-$ _ _   _-&-- -B( UUUU- - !z -  - --&-$ ~ ~   -&-- -B( - - !Jy@-  - --&-$@@@-&-- -B( - - !Jy@-  - --&-$@@@-&-- -B( ww- - !3yW -  - --&-$ W W   W-&-- -B( ww- - !3yW~ -  - --&-$~ W W ~ ~ W---'--  --'-- -  XX     --'--  ----'--  #   2 80%%%;---'--  ----'--   z   2 82%%%;---'--  ----'--  "F  2 Y62%%%;---'--  ----'--  ;  2 N64%%%;---'--  ----'--  {  2 52%%%;---'--  ----'--  P   2  74%%%;---'--  ----'--  }    2  68%%%;---'--  ----'--    2 48%%%;---'--  ----'--  1'  2 44%%%;---'--  ----'--  #  2 44%%%;---'--  ----'--  4.    2  41%%%;---'--  ----'--  46    2  41%%%;---'--  --'--    2 `<0%%; 2 25%%%; 2 50%%%; 2 .75%%%; 2 r100%%%%;--'--  --'--   %2 Students Leaving for-))%)%)%%%)))2 CS 20010-%%%%"2 Students Returning-))%)%0%))))2 u from CS 2001)<0-%%%%%2 Students Leaving for-))%)%)%%%)))2 CS 20020-%%%%"2  Students Returning-))%)%0%))))2 l form CS 2002)<0-%%%%--'--  ----'--  o "Arialw@ bwbw0- 2 Percent----'--  -- aB .---'---  \> 2---'---  \> 2- &-- -B( - - !//-  - --&- *-.(2 -Large (10,000 or more).*.******.C.*.---'--- \> 2---'--- \> 2- &-- -B( ww-- !//- -- -&- *-.(2 -Mid-size (3,000-9,999)?.*&*********.---'---  \> 2---'---  \> 2- &-- -B( ww- - !//^ -  - --&- * ^ -.+2 - Small (fewer than 3,000)2C**<*.*.****.---'--- \> 2---'--- --'  '  'ObjInfo+-UWorkbookB_11221003050F5V5VOle V Z$@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial=| ,##0.00_ Z$@` J ` J ` g 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&$$r$$rSTU%Students Leaving for CS 2001(Students Returning from CS 2001%Students Leaving for CS 2002(Students Returning form CS 2002Large (10,000 or more) ףp= ? {Gz? ? = ףp=?Mid-size (3,000-9,999) Q? p= ף? Gz? (\?!Small (fewer than 3,000) )\(? )\(? = ףp=? = ףp=?WY P -t= >X4?3d 3Q  0Large (10,000 or more)Q QQ3_ O  f- % i@za7. iҾ?Ok͹( 80% MMd 4E4 3Q  0Mid-size (3,000-9,999)Q QQ3_ O  f- % i@za߿ߝXo( UUUU30% MMd 4E4 3Q  4Small (fewer than 3,000)Q QQ3_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 4E4 3Q 1999-00QQQ3_ M   f5 - i@za.[]- ='>( ffTrellis MMd 4E4 3Q 2000-01QQQ3_ M  f1 ) i @zaԑ]>]F( wwWeave MMd 4E4D$% M063O&Q4$% M063O&Q4FAOe 3O{> 3 b#M&43*???#M&! 4% b<MZ3O(&Q Percent'43J" - 3O/ s% M3O&Q423 M NM443_ M NM  MMd 444% M03O&Q'4% wOM:3O&Q'4% OOM:3O#&Q'4% M03O&Q'4% OM:3O&Q'4%  (OM:3O&Q'4% l OM:3O&Q'4% a<OM:3O&Q'4% M03O&Q'4% OM:3O&Q'4% AwOM:3O&Q'4%  OM:3O &Q'4% OM:3O&Q'4% M03O&Q'4% M03O&Q'44 PRINT/2Q#CompObjWdObjInfo13YWorkbookZ )'  L   x ''  "Arialw@ *bwbw0-"Arialw@ Obwbw0------------- "System 0-'- x -'- x -'- X - &-- -B( ]UU-b$/;FBFBFHFOFOFUG\G\GbHbHiIoIoIvJ|K|KMNNOQQRRTVVXZZ\__accffillnqqu; ---&-d$0;FBFBFHFOFOFUG\G\GbHbHiIoIoIvJ|K|KMNNOQQRRTVVXZZ\__accffillnqqu;;F-&-- -B( ww-J$uxx{  !!&++055:??CHHLQQUYY^bbfiimqqtxx{  ##)//5<<BHHNTT[[aggnttz "((/55;AAGMMSYY_eekppv{|{|xttqmmiffb^^YUUQLLHCC?::500+&&!    "$$&''))*|+|+v,o-o-i.b/b/\/U0U0O0H1H1B1;1;151.1.1(0!0!0///.--,++*))'&&$""   {uupjje``ZUUPKKFAA=883//*&&!   |vvpkke__YSSMGGA;;5//(""  zttngga[[TNNHBB<55/))#    ; ---&-L$uxx{  !!&++055:??CHHLQQUYY^bbfiimqqtxx{  ##)//5<<BHHNTT[[aggnttz "((/55;AAGMMSYY_eekppv{|{|xttqmmiffb^^YUUQLLHCC?::500+&&!    "$$&''))*|+|+v,o-o-i.b/b/\/U0U0O0H1H1B1;1;151.1.1(0!0!0///.--,++*))'&&$""   {uupjje``ZUUPKKFAA=883//*&&!   |vvpkke__YSSMGGA;;5//(""  zttngga[[TNNHBB<55/))#    ;u-&-- -B( @-$S !!&**/338==AFFKPPUZZ`eejppu{{{{xuuqnnliifcca__\ZZXVVTRRQOONMMKJJIIIHGG!G(F(F.F5F5F;F; ---&-$T !!&**/338==AFFKPPUZZ`eejppu{{{{xuuqnnliifcca__\ZZXVVTRRQOONMMKJJIIIHGG!G(F(F.F5F5F;F; ---'-- x  Q&o--'-- x ----'--  2  76.9%***@---'-- x ----'-- & 2 15.1%***@---'-- x ----'-- T  2 i 8.0%**@---'-- x -- - Pq---'---  Km---'---  Km- &-- -B( UUUU- - !00-  - --&- 9-.2 LLocal//++.---'--- Km---'--- Km- &-- -B( ww-- !00S- -- -&- 9S-.2 LState3++.---'---  Km---'---  Km- &-- -B( - - !00-  - --&- 9-.2 LFederal/+/++.---'--- Km---'--- x --' x  '  'MSGraph.Chart.89q Z$@B""$"#,##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_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_) 0.0%1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial= X ,##0.00_ Z$@` J ` J 883ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333\R3&$$$ STULocalStateFederal East @9S@333333.@WYd((#= >X4 f*3d 3Q  EastQQQ3_ O   MMd 43_ O  f- % i@za+.( 90% MMd 43_ O  f- % i@zafL4³@1( ww20% MMd 43_ O  f- % i@za1u&( UUUU40% MMd 4E4 3Q  WestQQQ3_4E4 3Q NorthQQQ3_4E4D$% M063O&Q4$% M063O&Q4FAYp3On3" 1 X(3O4 Z/5% M3O&Q423 M NM44$% M063OQ '43_ M NM  MMd 444% \ wM:3O)"&Q'4% hwM:3O"&Q'4% 5M:3O&Q'4% M03O&Q'44 Oh+'0(< LX x   HChapter II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Dan Sheehan Normal.dotmlworley1Tabley6SummaryInformation(6DocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObjy4 lalf4pZ%%%%%%%%%=$$Ifl!v h5T55555555 #vT#v#v#v#v :V l05T5555 / / / / / 4alkd{$$Ifl Tr  +JT0$$$$4 lalg$$Ifl!v h5T55555555 #vT#v#v#v#v :V l05T5555 / / / / / / / /  4alkd$$Ifl Tr  +JT0$$$$4 lal\Dd J  C A? "2[䅏g٤-?`![䅏g٤-/ (K$`xZ]hU>wv3G&mVL6k-1RPHMH!Yh)AЧ>(BA!> mħF0"1a=̝󳳻iݝo{w3 {/@5U#ǔL&~nJЕe0&qX5^jդmԡfi)>;=䭢ja]1jQz;JP|. ^4#K7Tɔ[V`ayElY(bG6+sOpE/m*hH77P#c3#id^iQd\W 3Zb\_vI4kWA;M}e`&Da^#rحl2Y/7^agBDüFzl*].Kew ٍ2{E yawPlM"Rؽya7yb+b]ĕ6y`Jc-vMz)pMdtAE+z جf%6"A5Kӱyf  !2; lcVb[؂X`ёj{8Fln{;m[ mmpK-Ez|""WN"Pxၨm\^pNxѶ77ӶFx_-q[&snxw:IW)5=h}aw{>=`{@jwagSp|ffb K?Vdk1~_v挗z[= W8V>~xYH,;ox=(yu;(OVZ8a Z80,auc9}g7HZU@cS" Ǭ؜DŽv#C[H#U֐L 3s#C6ޜGXGl#Gc|G;O'œggĤxG>YҺl{jY9y3_֛?lq$$If!vh5 55 5#v #v#v #v:V  (0p#5 55 5/  / / / / 2 V44 p($$If!v h555555555 #v :V  Z0p#5 /  / / / / / 44 pZkdʗ$$If  qa#  Z0p#$$$$4 apZ$$If!vh5p##vp#:V 0p#5p#/ 2 s44 T$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / / /  / / / / / / /  2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 $$If!vh5p##vp#:V 0p#5p#/ 2 s44 T$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / / /  / / / / / / /  2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / /  / / / / / 2 s44 *$$If!v h555555555 #v :V 0p#5 / / / / / / / 2 s44 Dd !N J  C A? "24]/J[5K`!4]/J[5K8/PS!xZ]lU>QJV(l׶UTB,P!)*¶bSSC 1ꙺwx,;AMb-܌lzXHq0@sNeĄU51X3% Yzuzmno V>gfUg/sAy]9uXKWb!P9za0f"\pe+ס={TOK YOSщbY/"Os6Lv"LY"L['QBj1ևi8kS7!%bdbT=[rr,;a18GAi-:ur)xUU?fy^{ A5Sgf5?zLVCHAr.*7dm;1Jר6H^ܹc%{s:rxi۠mn X~u#J9uAPK͝gSr8pȎC'rq?rSօ7wbSpA9O]pǻ`A9OK]N|9SΣ)] Y9ɲbPr΍3%{s$pwM?T yB5,QrE~NK C֡tuXKWcq֓l:uܱtw,;L̖q]y<6zs2,f|oV[]a1OF|"b|>_IƸїb< l'Xmn *~fh!Mg6|06Oq{`q?s9-A8 |L91:>|q g>@ 6,DƗWcCp1~p?oRb\0 }1JnxLoC TiJ}Sҩo+I_ džng,XLm"4W*՝=q,=Kt{_Of[TilGdKZdK^wu'Rdh "Vzj+F-a?*UI?LP_ft8!itUe0ϊ cLy`l Ǹь˜21(MHAf~OSʹ&羧Hi&_]QdѷikEfscdwTk{I"=a&Ⱦ^ؒ~U}Z%k'c] XaϴvHz.`(^[+JEXL:!-L&F3Lz>* (Q-Pg/EQ?h~Eryԭ0F3;1D|b{2};p~l$"J[n]I~U8ubbl9,ߓbQ$u %әDxHbux70 5>yTg9 ؑynߟfq>mWє9}\@Yf"c8Q&*Z5Yckdݞs/@ƽ{8+p @"r lM1M4I$ ^/@dOڌHtw/ӦWdAH1d|G1{qN&O/I2EOSd4~VVD7+bzz=M 8q'1uqY8~Gc%AvA@;Sr%Rr 5E`%Pr#%_Kx xxLlBgn{uxxxxxX;눵U[I YM{崽ZKJZx$ WfDeNTEWމ]QcOD;\y 3S2c-,gea6&K˝|-"oEda!X@V |[@ ^>#ydG}dϭ[2%"e3-6ßOjßx?cNuNS!яNs-3M^&UoF{?o*' s;7:,3 IXGzw &l97/G:OeIzUznɝ=D 5w.{Υ4NE_"=t C*{C{%?ۦ ={8ϖr O*oԓǓ˭k U23*C{}}󵸲ĿFXƼg*>kGֈ=C<8{TVŵGXqfWb@E7:7 ]qz9=_u:㮸XqJ?"O8k?+CoVG򋄡_",6l2Microsoft Office Word@@Tڑe@CV@CV"y՜.+,00 hp  TASBw EChapter II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Title^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv66666686666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <@<  Heading 1$@&5aJ:@:  Heading 2$@&6]D@D  Heading 3$$@&a$ 5CJ\X@X  Heading 4!$-D@&M 67]L@L  Heading 5$5$7$8$9D@&H$5aJN@N  Heading 6$$@&a$5B*CJaJphH@H  Heading 7$@&5B*CJaJphb@b  Heading 8)$ ,5$7$8$9D@&H$ 5CJaJF @F  Heading 9 $$@&a$ 56\]DA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k`(No List 2>@2 Title$a$5\8@8 Header  !aJ:B@: Body Text 5CJ0aJ@&@!@ Footnote ReferenceH*@P@2@ Body Text 2 B*aJph>@B>  Footnote TextCJaJBQ@RB Body Text 35B*aJphJ"@J Caption-DM 6]4 @r4 Footer  !.)@. Page NumberB^@B Normal (Web)dd[$\$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] J?beKk?  Kkn?; $$$'J &g+.@Z}gz}M"^&_&w&&&&&&&&,?.@J@Z@z@@@@@A,ACAcA{AAAAAABCsYrSnbʆ(:Ss܏SuLMLzؗ;RB!K| 6A\ST01efάϬ67hi>{|~ K#f#h#(((---Nzizkzk8SU?::::::: !'!!tKfhn:l,2$9~ O1M_v@l (     s hA ? > `'((., {,9( k%k /W3r8r=A{%FHKCK{MMO M"CK&F+A%K@%K,I+6V*5%4 T391:-,* ,h /h 22(.#" ?\B  S DjJ"?V   # "? \B  S Do"?B S  ?CJ#=?hXD%XTc%rT t  @#+ T@5)u% *u%R +u%L ,u%4 -u% .u%| /u%L 0u%$ 1u% 2u%L 3u%V 4u%, 5u%́ 6u% 7u%6 8u%  9u%Lu :u% ;u%L u%̂ ?u%6 @u% Au%d Bu%w Cu%u Du% u Eu% Fu% v Gu%u Hu%v Iu%4x Ju%w Ku%Dy Lu%ܓ Mu%|JNu%

??/?SSUUXXddiimzvz||/0UVBJT\cm7?XȘ͘ژߘem W`aakBHJLop@333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333()**IIJKvw_`K#i#[[[[hgigTjUjjj $%U_I@K#i#@ v e2R}3+#g JL_AMO_XmlVersionEmpty@d?@0@8@H@@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialA BCambria Math"ph9D&9D&Fx&"yw"ywY24d 3QHX?  e22!xxDChapter II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Dan Sheehanlworley  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q