ࡱ> IKH y>bjbj<< 3M^^^6     T]]] ,]?--CCC7   CCttt& C C6ttttCP4V]*t0?t *" t t$rt0\NL(?  : Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Year One Evaluation, 199697 Executive Summary This evaluation centers on 17 openenrollment charter schools, 16 of them starting operation in the fall of 1996, one in January 1997. These schools were started in response to Texas Education Code 12.10112.118 enacted in 1995. Approved by the Texas State Board of Education, these schools operate independently of local school districts and are freed from many state education regulations. This evaluation was commissioned by the State Board of Education pursuant to TEC 12.118 and covers the first of a multiyear study. As described in this report, the evaluation encompasses a variety of data sources including parent and student surveys, surveys of charter school directors and local school district officials, document analysis, and onsite visits. A summary of major findings is presented here. A comparative analysis of student achievement results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), student attrition over one year, and charter school budgeting and fiscal practices will be forthcoming at a later date. Readers are urged to review relevant sections of the complete report for a full understanding of the findings and their significance. The findings listed in this summary roughly parallel the information presented in turn in each major section of the complete report. It is important to note at the outset that since first year charter school applications were approved on a firstcome, firstserved basis from a small applicant pool, characteristics of the initial charter school cohort may differ significantly from those of later cohorts. Section II: Characteristics of Texas OpenEnrollment Charter Schools. 1. Enrollment in the 17 charter schools opening in the fall of 1996 was small, averaging 147 students per school. Charter school directors reported that the total enrollment was 2,498 at the end of the first year of operation. By comparison, total enrollment in Texas public schools was approximately 3.8 million. Studentteacher ratios also were low for most charter schools. 2. Eleven of the seventeen charter schools are new schools started in response to the legislation. The other six were converted from private institutions. Eleven serve atrisk student populations, while six serve regular students (hereinafter identified as "nonatrisk" students). 3. Compared with their overall percentages of Texas public school enrollment, Hispanic and AfricanAmerican students are overrepresented in overall charter school enrollment; Anglo students are underrepresented. Similar to many public school districts and campuses, most of the 17 charter schools have racially and ethnically distinctive enrollments ranging from 90 percent or more minority to threequarters Anglo. These enrollment patterns are reflective in part of the geographic area each school serves and in part of the mission of the school. 4. Charter school teachers are not required to be state certified and over half are not. Nearly 60 percent do not have a background in public education, and an equal percentage are members of minority groups, a much higher representation than in Texas public schools. Four-fifths have previous teaching experience. Fifty-nine percent have a bachelors degree, 28 percent have a masters degree, and six percent have doctorates. Section III: Perspectives of Charter School Directors 5. Most charter school directors hold degrees beyond the bachelors and four hold doctorates. Although public school principals are required to hold mid-management certification, two-thirds of the charter school directors do not have this certification. The majority of the charter school directors have prior public and/or private school experience. 6. Both traditional public school and charter schools students must pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test in order to graduate, and TAAS scores are used in both cases to determine the success of the school. Some of the charter schools included additional performance measures in their charter applications. Those measures vary greatly among schools, making comparisons difficult. 7. Autonomy in educational programming is the major reason charter school operators start their schools. Serving a special student population is a close second for operators of the 11 atrisk charter schools, while realizing an educational vision is second for operators of the six nonatrisk charter schools. 8. Charter school directors say that their single most difficult problem during the first year of operation is lack of startup funding. According to the ˿Ƶ, startup funding ranged from $0 to $100,000. Limited financial resources make it difficult for schools to find suitable space to offer classes, hire faculty and staff, and acquire teaching materials. Lack of start-up capital handicaps educational innovators. Other major challenges charter school directors identify include facilities, operating funds, and planning time. 9. Operators of atrisk charter schools do not experience much opposition from school districts to the founding of their schools. Operators of nonatrisk charter schools are more likely to report local board opposition. 10. While charter school directors report that they are having an impact on neighboring school districts, few can say specifically what the impact is. Generally, the directors report relations with neighboring school districts as cooperative. Only two indicated a hostile relationship. 11. According to the responses of charter school directors, charter school governing boards are characterized by their informality, with considerable variation from school to school in the selection of board members and officers, holding of meetings, and board activities. About half the boards are reported to be racially diverse. About half the charter school directors say that parents are included on their boards. Teachers are said to be included on three boards. 12. According to charter school directors, a quarter or more of their teachers employed in 199697 did not plan to return the following year. 13. According to their directors, charter schools employ a variety of curricular approaches. While threequarters say they use Texas curriculum materials, only one school uses them exclusively. In four schools, teachers are reported to have developed their own curriculum. The most common educational practices reported are use of technology to enhance student learning, individualized learning, performancebased assessment, and multiage grouping. 14. According to charter school directors, parent participation is part of the organizational format. Parents most frequently are involved in fund raising activities. 15. More than threequarters of charter school directors report having a wait list of students. Most plan to expand by adding classes and faculty. Half expect to add grade levels. 16. According to charter school directors, over onefifth of their students left after one year. Directors at nonatrisk charter schools say the two most important reasons for leaving are that the school didnt meet academic expectations and student discipline problems. Directors of atrisk schools indicate a variety of reasons unique to their student populations. 17. Charter schools do not have to follow the state student discipline system. Thus student discipline information comes from charter school directors themselves and is not directly comparable to information available for other public schools. In the aggregate, charter school directors say they spend about 15 percent of their time on discipline. Twothirds say that student discipline problems are not serious. Section IV: Parent Demographics, Participation, and Satisfaction Levels 18. Our survey sample shows that parents whose children are enrolled in charter schools serving at-risk students have lower levels of education and income, are less likely to be two-parent households, are more likely to receive public assistance, and are less likely to be employed than parents whose children attend charter schools for non-at-risk students. Parents in at-risk charter schools also tend to hold lower expectations for their childrens education and to be less involved in school activities than parents of students in non-at-risk schools. The characteristics of parents whose children are enrolled in charter schools serving at-risk students are similar to those of a comparison group of nonchoosing parents. The characteristics of parents whose children are enrolled in non-at-risk charter schools differ from those of a comparison group of parents whose children attend traditional public schools. 19. While charter school directors say they employed flyers, parent meetings, and radio announcements as primary ways to market their schools, most parents surveyed said they learned about schools through networks of friends and relatives. Parents of students enrolling in charter schools for nonatrisk students were less likely to find out about the school from someone at traditional public school than were parents of children attending charter schools for atrisk students. 20. More than fourfifths of charter school parents cite educational quality and small class size as primary reasons for their decision to seek out a charter school. Parents sending their children to schools for atrisk students mentioned school location, teaching moral values, and problems with learning and discipline experienced at the previous school as motivating factors more frequently than parents of children attending schools for nonatrisk students. 21. Charter school parents are more unhappy with their previous school than a comparison group of nonchoosing parents. Parents of children attending charter schools for atrisk students are more likely to give their previous school a D or F than either nonatrisk charter school parents or a comparison group whose atrisk children attend public schools. About onethird of charter school parents express dissatisfaction with lack of parental input and with discipline at their previous school. 22. After four months into the school year, charter school parents are pleased with their schools, over 80 percent giving them an A or B. The percentage of satisfaction is higher than for a comparison group of nonchoosing parents whose children attend traditional public schools. 23. Most charter school parents indicate that they would have their child attend a regular public school if the charter option were not available rather than pay tuition for their child to attend a private school. Section V: Student Satisfaction 24. Students at the three newly started charter schools serving nonatrisk student populations say that parent influence is the most important reason for their enrollment. Parent influence is a much less important reason at the seven newly started charter schools serving atrisk students. These students identify teacher attention and the better fit of the classes as their most important reasons for enrolling. 25. More than half of students at nonatrisk charter schools and nearly 75 percent of their counterparts attending at-risk charter schools find the charter school to be better than the school they would otherwise have attended in terms of offering smaller classes and of having teachers who care about students, give personal attention, and are of high quality. Between a quarter and a third of students in non-at-risk charter schools say their charter school is worse in terms of having a caring principal, offering a choice of classes, having orderly classrooms, and being close to home. Students attending at-risk charter schools students are less dissatisfied, with fewer than ten percent identifying anything being worse except for proximity to home (24 percent found this worse). 26. Nearly twothirds of eligible students in at-risk charter schools and half the students in non-at-risk charter schools say they plan to return to their charter school. The rest are either uncertain about their future plans or say they do not intend to return. By contrast, charter school directors anticipate a much higher student return rate. 27. Dissatisfaction with the charter school is greater for students in non-at-risk schools than for students in at-risk schools. Fewer than onefifth of the former give their school an A, compared with nearly onethird of the latter. For both types of charter schools, the predominant grade given by students was a B. 28. While more than 95 percent of students at both non-at-risk charter schools and comparison public schools say they intend to go to college, the latter are more likely to aspire to attend a fouryear college. Students in at-risk charter schools are more likely to say they will go to college than a comparison group of students attending comparison at-risk public schools. Section VI: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts 29. Generally, school officials in districts near charter schools report minimal effects from their presence after one year. The small number of charter schools, coupled with not having to transfer district funds to the schools when students leave, may contribute to this impression. (During the 199697 school year, open-enrollment charter school funding came directly from the state. Therefore, no district was required to transfer district funds to a charter school when students left.) If located near a charter school serving atrisk students or dropouts, district officials tend to indicate that the impact is neutral or positive. If located near a charter school serving nonatrisk students, officials are more likely to indicate that the presence of the charter school is problematic in terms of creating divisions either in the student body or in the community.     PAGE 1 U1hK&&11::^>_>a>b>d>e>g>h>j>k>l>q>r>s>t>v>w>x>y>hTCJmHnHujhURCJUhURh%Tjh%TUhUR6CJ] hURCJhUR5CJ\aJ'DVW u =  d  } 9 l m 1$$1$a$@A[\]23ij[\  1$ `01$^`0 !!""<#=#$$K&L&&&&+*,* ,,--//0011111$ `01$^`0133366771929::::^>`>a>c>d>f>g>i>j>k>u>v> $$& #$a$d1$ `01$^`0v>w>x>y> `01$^`090PBP/ =!"#$% Dp< 00PBP/ =!"#$% Dp< 00PBP/ =!"#$% Dp< 00PBP/ =!"#$% Dp< 00PBP/ =!"#$% Dp^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 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 H`H Normal1$7$8$H$_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List <& < Footnote ReferencePK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$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] ] +y6(L(;L(yL(L(L y>  1v>y>!"#$% !8@0(  B S  ? $v%%v%&v%'v%lԾ(v%d)v%*v% +v%,v%L-v%.v%DOOU z6  TZZ z6 9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState n    C N vJUmvZa W!b!Q#\##$$'$$$%%@&L&&&&&'"'I'R'(("*-***++..000011 5555^6`6a6c6d6f6g6i6j6w6z6u|=@dl&}9= " 9 l]d% &t0y0-414^6`6a6c6d6f6g6i6j6w6z63333333333333333333]6^6k6t6z6]6^6k6t6z6UR%TT^6`6_AMO_XmlVersionEmpty@y6@@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialA BCambria Math"A hCD&CD&A.bA.b xx2C6C63 HX? UR2!xx@Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year One Executive SummaryTCERlworleyOh+'0 , <H h t DTexas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year One Executive SummaryTCER Normal.dotmlworley2Microsoft Office Word@@V@VA.՜.+,0, hp  TCERbC6 ATexas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year One Executive Summary Title  !"#$%&()*+,-./012345679:;<=>?ABCDEFGJRoot Entry F0*VL1Table' WordDocument3MSummaryInformation(8DocumentSummaryInformation8@CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q