ࡱ>  _ bjbjzz B\B\xC8X@D(.+++++,,,-------$/1-,,,,,-++----,"++g-6-,----+[e,"-S--0.-z2,"z2-z2-4,,-,,,,,---,,,.,,,,z2,,,,,,,,,> : Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Year One Evaluation A Research Report To be Presented to the Texas State Board of Education Delbert Taebel Edith J. Barrett Christine Thurlow Brenner School of Urban and Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Frank Kemerer Carrie Ausbrooks Center for the Study of Education Reform University of North Texas Catherine Clark Kay Thomas Kerri L. Briggs Texas Center for Educational Research Allan Parker Texas Justice Foundation Gregory Weiher Richard Matland Kent Tedin Christopher Cookson Laura Nielsen The Center for Public Policy University of Houston December 1997 Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Year One Evaluation Executive Summary 1 Section I: Introduction 7 Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 10 General Characteristics 10 Student Characteristics 16 Charter School Faculties 18 Implementing Charter Standards 19 Facilities 19 Charter School Finance 19 Summary 22 Section III: Perspectives of Charter School Directors 23 Starting Charter Schools 23 Governance, Finances, and Support 26 Governance 26 Finances 29 Support from the community and business partnerships 30 Personnel, Programs, and the Impact on Public School Districts 30 Directors 30 Teachers 31 Curriculum and instruction 31 Impact 33 Parents and Students 33 Parents 33 Students 35 Student Discipline 37 Summary 38 Section IV: Parental Demographics, Satisfaction, and Participation Levels 40 Introduction 40 Demographic Characteristics of Charter School Parents in Comparison with Nonchoosing Parents 42 Ethnicity 42 Income level 44 Education level 46 Employment status 47 Marital status 49 Receiving public assistance 49 Expectations for oldest childs future 50 Summary 52 Access to Information about New Charter Schools 52 Reasons for Choosing to Enroll in a Charter School 53 Parent Satisfaction with Charter Schools Compared with Previous School 54 Parent Involvement 59 Section V: Student Satisfaction 62 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School 64 Evaluation of the Charter School 65 Comparison between Charter and Non-Charter Students 69 Summary 74 Section VI: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts 76 Student Attrition 76 Teacher Attrition and Class Size 77 Loss of State Funding 77 Other Effects on Districts 77 Changes in programs 77 Effects on students 78 Effects on parents and communities 78 Overall Effects on Traditional School Districts 78 Summary 80 Section VII: Performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills 81 Summary 82 Section VIII: Commentary and Policy Challenges 84 Differences among charter schools 84 Racial and ethnic diversity 85 Student recruitment 86 Student skimming 86 Start-up funding 86 Governance 87 Appendices Appendix A: Texas Education Code 12.101-12.118 Appendix B: Charter School Profiles Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments Table of Tables Section II II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools and Characteristics of Students 11 II.2 Enrollments, Teachers, and Student-Teacher Ratios 12 II.3 New Charter Schools and Conversion Schools 13 II.4 Open-Enrollment Charter School Groupings 15 II.5 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Percentage Student Enrollment by Ethnicity 16 II.6 Percentage of Student Race/Ethnicity in Individual Charter Schools 17 II.7 Charter School Special Populations Percentage Student Enrollment by Special Status 18 II.8 Charter School Fall Budgets, 1996-1997 21 Section III III.1 Reasons for Founding a Charter School 24 III.2 Obstacles Involved in Opening Charter Schools 26 III.3 Characteristics of Charter School Governing Board Members 27 III.4 Numbers of Charter School Board Members by Race and Ethnicity 28 III.5 Self-reported Start-up Funds for Charter Schools, 1996-97 29 III.6 Reported Community and Business Partnerships 31 III.7 Years of Teaching and Administrative Experience of Charter School Directors 31 III.8 Educational Practices Used in Charter Schools 32 III.9 Parent Participation Practices in Charter Schools 34 III.10 Type of Parent Involvement in Charter School Activities 35 III.11 Students Who Left Charter Schools in 1996-97, Reported by School Directors 36 III.12 Student Recruitment Techniques Reported By Charter Schools 37 III.13 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools 38 Section IV IV.1 Ethnicity: Responding Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 43 IV.2 Ethnicity: Responding Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 43 IV.3 Family Annual Income Level: Parents of Students at At-Risk Schools 44 IV.4 Family Annual Income Level Parents of Students at Non-At-Risk Schools 45 IV.5 Education Level: Responding Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 47 IV.6 Education Level: Responding Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 47 IV.7 Employment Status: Responding Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 48 IV.8 Employment Status: Responding Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 48 IV.9 Marital Status: Parents of Students at At-Risk Schools 49 IV.10 Marital Status: Parents of Students at Non-At-Risk Schools 49 IV.11 Parents Receiving Public Assistance, At-Risk Schools 50 IV.12 Parents Receiving Public Assistance, Non-At-Risk Schools 50 IV.13 Expectations for Oldest Childs Future: Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 51 IV.14 Expectations for Oldest Childs Future: Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 51 IV.15 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School: Percentage Response from Parents of Students Attending an At-Risk School 53 IV.16 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School: Percentage Response from Parents of Students Attending a Non-At-Risk School 54 IV.17 Assigning a Grade to the Previous School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 55 IV.18 Assigning a Grade to the Previous School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 55 IV.19 Parents Satisfaction with Aspects of Childs Previous School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 56 IV.20 Parents Satisfaction with Aspects of Childs Previous School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 57 IV.21 Assigning a Grade to the Present School: Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 58 IV.22 Assigning a Grade to the Present School: Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 58 IV.23 Restrictions on the Amount of Time Child is Permitted to Watch TV: Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 59 IV.24 Restrictions on the Amount of Time Child is Permitted to Watch TV: Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 60 IV.25 Parent Activities at the School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools 60 IV.26 Parent Activities at the School: Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools 61 Section V V.1 Student Survey Response Rate 62 V.2 Characteristics of the Charter School Sample 63 V.3 Distribution of Responses across Schools: Weights Used to Balance Responses 64 V.4 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School 65 V.5 Students Comparison of Non-At-Risk Charter School with the School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 66 V.6 Students Comparison of At-Risk Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 67 V.7 Students Plans for the Coming School Year 68 V.8 Grades Students Give to Their Schools 69 V.9 Demographics of Charter Schools and the Survey Sample 70 V.10 Characteristics of Charter School Sample and Comparison Group Sample 71 V.11 Satisfaction with Comparison Schools and Charter Schools 73 V.12 Future Goals of Comparison School Students and Charter School Students 74 Section VI VI.1 District Officials Reports of Charter Schools Effects 79 Section VII VII.1 Spring 1997 TAAS Results for Charter School Students 8182 Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Year One Evaluation, 1996-97 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 in this section. 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 199697 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 created 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 75 percent Anglo. These enrollment patterns partly reflect the geographic area each school serves and in part each schools mission. 4. Charter school teachers are not required to be state certified and over half are not. Forty percent have experience teaching in public education, and a similar percent have experience teaching in private schools. Fifty-nine percent have a bachelors degree, 28 percent have a masters degree, and six percent have doctorates. Almost seventy percent are members of minority groups, a much higher representation than in Texas public schools. 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 fundraising 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 did not 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 of students 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 a 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 1996-97 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. Section I: Introduction In 1995 in legislation commonly referred to as Senate Bill 1, the Texas Legislature provided for the creation of open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-118). Open-enrollment charter schools are public schools that are substantially released from state education regulations and exist separate and apart from local independent school districts. They may be sponsored by an institution of higher education (public or private), a non-profit organization (501c (3) as set out in the Internal Revenue Code), or a governmental entity. By the end of the 1997 school year, seventeen open-enrollment charter schools were operating in Texas, though charters had been granted to twenty sponsors. Sixteen started operation in August or September 1996, one in January 1997. TEC 12.118 calls for the Texas State Board of Education to designate an impartial organization with experience in evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. Three groups were designated jointly to evaluate open-enrollment charter schools by the State Board of Education. Group One consists of researchers from the Center of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington; Group Two from the Center for the Study of Education Reform at the University of North Texas, the Texas Center for Educational Research, and the Texas Justice Foundation; and Group Three from the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston. Together these three groups of researchers comprise the charter school evaluation team. The evaluation team is to consider: Students scores on assessment instruments Student attendance Student grades Data on student discipline Socioeconomic data on students families Parents satisfaction with their childrens schools, and Students satisfaction with their schools Moreover, the evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools is to take into account the effects of open-enrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts; and to evaluate costs incurred by charter schools for transportation, instruction, and administration. The evaluation team is addressing these concerns through: Review of charter applications Site visits to each school Surveys of charter school parents and a comparison group of public school parents Surveys of charter school students and a comparison group of public school students Assessment of TAAS scores of charter school students and a comparison group of public school students Collection of disciplinary data Comparison of attendance records Survey of charter school directors Survey of officials in impacted school districts For various reasons, it has not been possible to carry out this entire mandate in the initial year of the evaluation. First, we report, but do not analyze, scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) for first-year charter school students as gathered by the ˿Ƶ. The TAAS scores for these students in their previous schools are not yet available. When the data become available, the evaluation team will determine comparable achievement rates for charter school students in comparison with a similar group of non-choosing students. The results of the analysis of TAAS scores will be reported as an addendum to this document at a later date. Because previous TAAS scores are not available at this time, no meaningful comparison can be undertaken in this report. Since so many charter students are at-risk children or children who experienced problems in prior schools, it is to be expected that scores are generally low. Second, data on student attendance at charter schools including drop-out rates are not yet available from the ˿Ƶ and so is not included in this report. While we do report attendance information as given to us by charter school directors, this information is not as reliable as data obtained through the ˿Ƶs Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). Third, it has been logistically difficult to collect grades for charter school students. This situation is further complicated by the fact that grades do not have comparable meanings from one charter school to another because several of the schools have adopted innovative educational programs. Hence, grades will be provided in the addendum report. The remainder of this report is organized by major topics raised by guiding evaluation questions: Section II presents an overview of the characteristics of the 17 charter schools that are currently operating in Texas. Drs. Gregory Weiher and Christopher Cookson of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston prepared this section. Section III presents findings from surveys of the directors of open-enrollment charter schools. Dr. Delbert Taebel and Ms. Christine Thurlow Brenner of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington prepared this section. Section IV examines the characteristics and attitudes of charter school parents and compares them with a group of parents of students drawn from public schools with demographic characteristics similar to students in the open-enrollment charter schools. Drs. Richard Matland and Gregory Weiher of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston prepared this section, with assistance from Dr. Catherine Clark of the Texas Center for Educational Research and Dr. Frank Kemerer of the Center for the Study of Education Reform at the University of North Texas. Section V presents a summary of a survey of charter school students and a survey of a comparison group of students. Dr. Edith J. Barrett of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington prepared this section. Section VI presents a summary of a survey of officials in school districts in areas where charter schools operate. Dr. Kay Thomas of the Texas Center for Educational Research prepared this section. Section VII presents the first-year scores of charter school students on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) state achievement test as reported by the ˿Ƶ. Dr. Catherine Clark prepared this section. Section VIII includes commentary from the evaluation team regarding first-year findings and their public policy implications. Drs. Delbert Taebel, Frank Kemerer, and Gregory Weiher prepared this section. Drs. Frank Kemerer and Catherine Clark prepared the summary of findings. Appendix A includes the statutory provisions governing open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-118). Appendix B includes summary information about each of the seventeen charter schools. Appendix C includes copies of the various survey instruments used to collect information about parent and student satisfaction from charter school and comparison groups. Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools This section describes the general characteristics of Texas open-enrollment charter schools with specific reference to the following questions: What are the general characteristics of students and faculties in charter schools? How do charter school faculties compare with traditional public school faculties in terms of formal education attainment? From what sources do charter schools draw their faculties? How do charter school students and faculties compare to students and faculties in traditional public schools in terms of demographic characteristics? In addition to state-imposed performance standards, what standards have charter schools set for themselves? To what extent can charter schools be evaluated on their performance with respect to self-imposed standards? What kinds of facilities are charter schools using? What start-up problems are charter schools encountering? What costs did charter schools incur for instruction, administration, and transportation? General Characteristics The data presented in this chapter come from self-reports of charter school directors to the ˿Ƶ and to the evaluation team. Sixteen open-enrollment charter schools operated for the entire 1996-97 school year and one opened in January 1997. In Table II.1, these schools are grouped by location. In addition, the table gives specific information about student enrollment at each school. Table II.2 shows that open-enrollment charter schools in Texas are small. The average enrollment is 147, with the largest school enrolling 384 and the smallest enrolling 20. The U. S. Department of Education preliminary report on charter schools states that most charter schools are small. About 60 percent enroll fewer than 200 students, whereas only 16 percent of other public schools have such small student bodies. Table II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools and Characteristics of Students SchoolGrades ServedEnrollment May 1997*Percent At-Risk*Percent Special Ed.*Houston Girls & Boys Prep Medical Center George I. Sanchez SER-Nios UH Technology West Houston Raul Yzaguirre 6-11 K-5 9-12 PK-4 K-1 7-9 7-8 241 123 384 155 20 96 98 54 28 22 86 20 47 89 12 0 8 6 0 33 11Dallas Dallas Can! Renaissance PK, 9-12 8-10 269 298 100 28 3 2Austin American Institute for Learning Texas Academy of Excellence 9-12 PK-1 92 50 100 0 20 0San Antonio Blessed Sacrament Building Alternatives 9-12 9-12 136 99 100 100 5 13Corpus Christi Academy of Transitional Studies Seashore Learning Center 6-12 K-5 196 62 100 2 0 8Mission One-Stop Multiservice 9-12 117 100 0Waco Waco Charter School K-2 62 100 6TOTAL2,49872.66.9*The data in these columns were self-reported, not audited. They appear in a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, September 1997. Table II.2 Enrollments, Teachers, and Student-Teacher Ratios* SchoolEnrollment as of May 1997TeachersStudent-Teacher RatioAcademy of Transitional Studies196824.5American Institute for Learning92811.5Blessed Sacrament Second Chance High School1361211.3Building Alternatives99204.9Dallas Can!269299.3Girls and Boys Prep241278.9Medical Center123431.0One-Stop Multiservice117619.5Renaissance2982511.9George I. Sanchez3842118.3Seashore Learning Center62512.4SER-Nios1551411.1Texas Academy of Excellence5068.3Univ. of Houston Charter School of Technology2036.7Waco Charter School62512.4West Houston96109.6Raul Yzaguirre98519.6TOTAL2,49820812.1*From a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, September 1997. Although it is possible to present data for the 16 charter schools in the aggregate, it is more fruitful to divide the schools into subgroups. There are several ways these schools can be distinguished from each other. One possibility is to group the schools into a set that are conversion schools, already up and running in previous years, and those that started in response to the charter school legislation. About 65 percent of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas are new schools, similar to the national average of about 60 percent. Texas is one of six states that permit private schools to convert to charter schools. Table II.3 shows these groupings. Table II.3 New Charter Schools and Conversion Schools SchoolNew SchoolConversion SchoolAcademy of Transitional StudiesXAmerican Institute for LearningXBlessed Sacrament Second Chance High SchoolXBuilding AlternativesXDallas Can!XGirls and Boys PrepXMedical CenterXOne-Stop MultiserviceXRenaissanceXGeorge I. SanchezXSeashore Learning CenterXSER-NiosXTexas Academy of ExcellenceXUniv. of Houston Charter School of TechnologyXWaco Charter SchoolXWest HoustonXRaul YzaguirreXTOTAL116 A second alternative for grouping schools is to look at the differing levels of schooling. A third is to divide the schools by whether they cater primarily to at-risk students or to students who are not at risk. As it turns out, several of these distinctions run parallel to one other. The first broad cluster of schools is the group specializing in educational services to at-risk high school students. Table II.4 shows that there are seven schools in this category. These schools are distinctive in two ways. First, a majority of their students in these charter schools have had difficulties in the traditional school system. All these schools see their central role as providing a second chance to students who have failed at a traditional high school. Second, all of these schools (with the possible exception of Building Alternatives) existed in some form before the passage of legislation creating open-enrollment charter schools. For example, George I. Sanchez contracted with the Houston Independent School District for over 20 years to provide services for students who have left the traditional education system for one reason or another. While the change in status to charter school has significantly affected the way these schools operate, none of the schools was established because of the charter school legislation. One crucial characteristic of the remaining 10 charter schools is that they would not exist without the new legislation. All but one are newly created in response to the charter school legislation. These non-at-risk schools also are distinguished from the at-risk schools in terms of grade levels. As Table II.4 shows, six of the 10 remaining schools are for children in primary grades (prekindergarten through grade 5) and four of the schools have been established for children in either middle or high school (grades 6 through 10). None of the schools has high school students as the primary target population. A few have plans to expand in the coming years, but none offers a complete high school curriculum in the first year. In evaluating the mission statements of these 10 schools, one can determine that some see themselves as serving primarily at-risk or economically disadvantaged students, while others intend to serve more traditional students. Table II.4 Open-Enrollment Charter School Groupings* SchoolHigh SchoolPrimary Grade (PK-5) SchoolMiddle and High School Academy of Transitional StudiesX (at-risk)American Institute for LearningX (at-risk)Blessed Sacrament Second Chance High SchoolX (at-risk)Building AlternativesX (at-risk)Dallas Can!X (at-risk)Girls and Boys PrepXMedical CenterXOne-Stop MultiserviceX (at-risk)RenaissanceXGeorge I. SanchezX (at-risk)Seashore Learning CenterXSER-NiosX (at-risk)Texas Academy of ExcellenceX (at-risk)Univ. of Houston Charter School of TechnologyXWaco Charter SchoolX (at-risk)West HoustonXRaul YzaguirreX (at-risk)TOTAL764* At-risk indicates that the school mission is to serve students who are from low-income families or who are at risk of doing poorly in school or dropping out before graduating. Eleven charter schools are in this category. The other six serve more traditional students. Student Characteristics Texas charter school legislation 12.111(6) contains language that prohibits enrollment discrimination by charter schools. Critics claimed that charter schools would result in a system with Anglo students in academically oriented institutions and minority students in schools serving at-risk populations or schools with vocational programs. Though there is some evidence that this is occurring, the reality is somewhat more complex. The enrollment patterns of charter schools in Texas are not balanced along racial or ethnic lines. Table II.5 shows that, overall, no single racial or ethnic group is represented in charter schools in a proportion that approximates its statewide percentage. Table II.5 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Percentage Student Enrollment by Ethnicity EthnicityPublic Schools in Texas*Charter Schools in Texas**Charter Schools in the U. S.***Hispanic3751.524.8African-American1426.513.8Anglo4619.751.6Other32.39.8*˿Ƶ, Snapshot 96, p. 344. **From a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, September 1997. ***RPP International and the University of Minnesota. (May, 1997). A study of charter schools: First-year report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The data in Table II.6 demonstrate that most Texas charter schools have racially and ethnically distinctive enrollments. Acute cases of racial or ethnic distinctiveness occur in at-risk charter schools that have a high percentage of minority students, but one of the non-at-risk charter schools also presents such an acute case. Of 17 charter schools, nine have student bodies that are 90 percent or more minority. Eight of these schools serve at-risk students, but the Girls and Boys Preparatory Academya non-at-risk schoolhas an enrollment that is about 96 percent African-American. Nevertheless, while the non-at-risk schools in the aggregate enroll substantial numbers of minority students, over 77 percent of all Anglo students in charter schools are enrolled in non-at-risk schools, and 71 percent are enrolled in just three of theseRenaissance Charter School, West Houston Charter School, and the Seashore Learning Center (see Table II.6). Table II.6 Percentage of Student Race/Ethnicity in Individual Charter Schools* SchoolHispanicAfrican-AmericanAngloOtherAcademy of Transitional Studies75.03.021.40.5American Institute for Learning55.421.720.60.0Blessed Sacrament Second Chance93.42.92.90.7Building Alternatives52.541.46.10.0Dallas Can!41.652.45.60.4Girls and Boys Prep0.895.80.82.5Medical Center9.862.616.311.4One-Stop Multiservice97.40.02.60.0Renaissance8.47.077.57.0George I. Sanchez96.91.31.60.3Seashore Learning Center11.31.675.811.3SER-Nios89.08.41.90.6Texas Academy of Excellence4.090.06.00.0Univ. of Houston Charter School of Technology20.030.040.010.0Waco Charter School19.464.516.10.0West Houston11.510.476.00.0Raul Yzaguirre100.00.00.00.0TOTAL51.526.519.72.3*From a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, September 1997. It is important to point out that Texas public school districts and the schools within them are not ethnically balanced either. For example, Dallas ISD has an 86 percent African-American and Hispanic population, while Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, only a few miles away, has a 32 percent African-American and Hispanic student population. San Antonio ISD has only a six percent Anglo student population, whereas Alamo Heights ISD, a San Antonio suburban school district, has a 73 percent Anglo student population. It appears that the charter school population reflects the prevailing racial and ethnic pattern in Texas. Students at risk of dropping out of school before graduation are also over-represented in the population of charter school students (see Table II.7). Nationally, three-fourths of charter schools are dedicated wholly or in major part to serving at-risk student populations. But the percentage in Texas appears high even when compared to that figure. Why this has occurred for the initial cohort of open-enrollment charter schools and whether it might continue as more charter schools are started are matters open to speculation. Alternative education programs such as magnet schools are often charged with skimming off the most able students, but in Texas the initial cohort of charter schools tends to serve students with the greatest educational difficulties. At the same time, the percentage of students with disabilities and identified gifted and talented students served by Texas charter schools is lower than for Texas traditional public schools (see Table II.7). Table II.7 Charter School Special Populations Percentage Student Enrollment by Special Status Special StatusPublic Schools in Texas*Charter Schools in Texas**At-risk Students39.072.6Special Education Students11.06.9Limited English Proficient Students11.011.6Gifted and Talented Students8.02.3*˿Ƶ. Snapshot 95. ** From a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, January 1997. Charter School Faculties Waiving teacher certification requirements for charter school teachers provokes strong reactions from critics. In response, some states such as Minnesota require that teachers in charter schools meet the same certification requirements as teachers in the traditional schools. In Texas, only four percent of all traditional public school teachers are not certified to teach; however, 51 percent of charter school teachers are not certified. Seven percent of charter school faculty members do not have a degree, 93 percent have a bachelors degreeof those, 28 percent have a masters degree, and 6 percent have a doctorate. Forty percent of charter school faculty members previously taught in public school and 39 percent taught in private school. Five percent of charter school faculty members taught in a college or university, and 16 percent come from a non-education work background. Proponents argue that waiving teacher certification requirements for charter school teachers will broaden the professional pool. This appears to be happening. A greater percentage of charter school teachers are minority group members than teachers in Texas public schools overall. Sixty-nine percent of charter school teachers are members of a racial/ethnic minority group, compared to 24 percent of Texas public school teachers overall. Implementing Charter Standards In their applications to the State Board of Education, charter school sponsors were asked to describe accountability provisions in addition to those required by Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code to which they would hold themselves accountable. Eight open-enrollment charter schools identified additional optional standards for student performance, but most do not state specifically how their students will perform with regard to additional standards. Facilities Open-enrollment charter schools in Texas have made diverse arrangements for facilities. Most schools lease the space they occupy. Three schools participate in what might be called a lease back arrangement, renting space from their sponsoring organizations. One school is granted permission to use space owned by the sponsoring organization, and another school has free space provided by the university that sponsors it. The type of space occupied by charter schools varies. Some occupy space that was designed and built for them. One school occupies a former office building; another leases a former hardware store. An elementary school leases space in a church, and another meets in a former day care center. Some students go to class in former convenience stores. Most charter schools had to renovate their space to make it suitable for school use. Charter School Finance Texas Education Code 12.107 entitles an open enrollment charter school to receive tuition of financial payment from the school district in which a student resides. The tuition is equal to the maintenance tax revenue collected in the district divided by the sum of students enrolled (including the charter school students). Texas Education Code 12.106 requires the commissioner of education to distribute to each charter school an amount equal to the foundation program allotment (plus the transportation allotment) that is calculated for the student in the district where the student resides, minus an amount equal to the sum of the schools tuition receipts (defined in 12.107) plus the per-student distribution from the Available School Fund ($331 per student for 1996-97). The open enrollment charter schools may not charge tuition to eligible students or their families. During the first year of operation, the ˿Ƶ treated open-enrollment charter schools as though they were school districts without tax bases. They received state aid for 100 percent of tier one and tier two funding at local tax rates. With the exception of one type of district, the state did not require school districts to send tuition payments to charter schools, nor did it deduct the amount of tuition from the school districts foundation program allotments. As noted later in this report, this condition reduced the impact of charter school development on traditional public school districts. In practice, during 1996-97, the foundation program allotment for students in charter schools was calculated using an adjustment to the basic allotment (Texas Education Code 42.101) for the county average cost-of-education index and the county average size adjustment. For tier two, open-enrollment charter schools receive funding based on the county average tier two tax effort. This approach avoids the disparities that would occur between tuition coming from students in small districts (that have higher foundation program allotments because of size) and students coming from larger districts. Similarly, charter schools would not have student-level funding variations based on the different property tax rates of neighboring school districts. Foundation program allotments per student can increase if a student is eligible for a special program allotment for career and technology education, bilingual education, compensatory education, gifted and talented education, or special education, The ˿Ƶ verifies student participation in special programs to make sure funding distributions are accurate. If students are served by a compensatory education program at an open-enrollment charter school, the school must offer free or reduced price lunches. Open-enrollment charter schools are subject to state information reporting requirements of the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). In October 1996, the charter schools reported budget estimates by object and function. These budget reports were refined to correct coding errors and omitted data. Budget reports appear for 16 of the 20 charter schools approved by the State Board of Education in 1996. The University of Houston Charter School of Technology began operations in January 1997 and did not submit budget data in the fall. Cypress Lodge was not open and did not have students at the time schools submitted fall budgets. North Hills Charter School and Pegasus Charter School received charters to open in fall 1997. Table II.8 reports budgeted expenditures in all function categories that charter schools reported via PEIMS in fall 1996. A full report on charter school revenues and expenditures will be forthcoming in 1998 when actual year-end data are available to the evaluation team. Table II.8 Charter School Fall Budgets, 1996-97* Expenditure (Function code)Total Budgeted by Charter SchoolsPercentage of Total Charter School BudgetsInstruction and instructional resources (11,12)$4,904,83745.0Curriculum and staff development (13)$171,2501.6Instructional leadership (21)$62,3640.6School leadership (23)$949,3298.7Guidance, counseling, and social work (31, 32)$581,5735.3Health services (33)$75,5430.7Pupil transportation (34)$151,7141.4Food service (35)$370,1643.4Extracurricular and co-curricular (36)$75,1910.7General administration (41)$1,715,62115.7Plant maintenance and operations (51)$1,453,89313.3Security and monitoring (52)$180,5671.7Data processing (53)$145,3141.3Community service (61)$30,2530.2Fundraising (81)$27,6100.2TOTAL$10,895,223*˿Ƶ, PEIMS 1996-97, fall budget data. Considered together for the 16 reporting charter schools, 45 percent of resources were budgeted for instruction (functions 11 and 12), about 16 percent for general administration (function 41), and less than two percent for pupil transportation (function 34). For 1996-97, public school districts budgeted 62 percent for instruction (functions 11 and 12), five percent for general administration (function 41), and three percent for pupil transportation (function 34). Experiences of public school districts show that budgeted operating expenditures vary from audited actual operating expenditures. At this time, it is not possible to determine whether schools budgeted expenditures vary significantly from actual expenditures. When audited expenditure data are available in 1998, a determination of the actual cost of instruction, administration, transportation, and other functions can be made. Summary Although Texas charter schools tend to be very small, most are located in urban areas. Nearly twice as many are newly created than converted from existing schools. The majority of Texas charter schools serve students at risk of dropping out of school before graduation. Across the United States, more than half the students enrolled in charter schools are Anglos; however, in Texas the majority of students are Hispanic, and more African-Americans than Anglos attend these schools. Individual Texas charter schools tend to be ethnically distinct, with minority students concentrated in at-risk schools and Anglo students in non-at-risk schools. Of course, this is the same pattern for many, if not most, public schools in Texas as the comparison school data demonstrate. Nearly all teachers in Texas traditional public schools are certified, yet slightly over half of charter school teachers are certified. More charter school teachers than traditional public school teachers belong to minority groups. Although nearly half of charter schools set standards for student performance beyond those required by Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, most of those do not state specifically how their students should meet those standards. Most charter schools are housed in leased buildings not originally designed to be schools. During their first year of operation, charter schools received state aid for all of tier one and two funding. School districts were not required to send money to charter schools or to deduct the amount of tuition from their foundation program allotment in 1996-97. Like traditional public school districts, charter schools submitted budgetary information through the Public Education Information Management System. A supplement to this report, available in 1998, will include actual costs of instruction, administration, transportation, and other functions for charter schools. Section III: Perspectives of Charter School Directors A charter school director is defined as the chief operating officer of the school. Directors generally perform the combined duties of superintendent and principal by implementing policy developed by their governing boards and by exercising direct control over the schools. This section is based on a survey of charter school directors. The evaluation team developed a questionnaire for the survey and mailed a copy to the director of each of the 17 charter schools operating in June 1997. A copy of the questionnaire appears in Appendix C of this report. Sixteen charter school directors completed and returned the questionnaire. For purposes of analysis, schools were grouped into two categories: at-risk schools (10 reported) and non-at-risk schools (six reported). A list of the schools in each category appears in Appendix B. Unless reported by category, the results should be interpreted to reflect the responses for all 16 responding charter school directors. This section of the evaluation report has four parts. The first part focuses on the reasons for founding charter schools and the challenges faced in opening the schools. The second part examines the governance of the schools, their finances, and support from business and the community. The third part describes school personnel and programs and the impact of charter schools on public school districts. Parents and students are the focus of the fourth part. Starting Charter Schools The first question posed to charter school directors was: What was the motivation for founding a charter school? Directors responded to a list of possible reasons, using a three-point rating scale where primary importance was given a value of 3, secondary importance was given a value of 2, and limited or no importance was given a value of 1. The results are depicted in Table III.1. There was near unanimity among the directors in selecting autonomy in educational programming as having primary importance in founding their charter schools. A related factor, realizing an educational vision was a close second. Autonomy in fiscal and personnel matters and autonomy from local school districts, state laws, and regulations ranked least in importance for both at-risk and non-at-risk schools. There is an important difference in the external orientation of at-risk schools compared to non-at-risk schools that highly value the autonomy they have as charter schools to seek non-traditional relationships with businesses, the community, and parents. This may also reflect the fact that most at-risk schools serve middle and high school populations, whereas the majority of non-at-risk schools serve elementary age children. The most striking difference between the at-risk and non-at-risk schools is in the student populations they serve. Most at-risk schools were created to serve a special student population, whereas the non-at-risk schools serve a more heterogeneous student population. Table III.1 Reasons for Founding a Charter School ReasonAt-Risk Charter Schools Mean RatingNon-At-Risk Charter Schools Mean RatingGain autonomy in educational programming2.93.0Serve a special student population2.81.6 Realize an educational vision2.73.0Involve parents2.72.2Gain autonomy to develop nontraditional relationships with the community2.72.0Seek public funding2.11.8Attract more students2.11.4Gain autonomy to develop nontraditional relationships with businesses2.11.2Seek grants2.01.6Gain autonomy in fiscal management1.71.8Gain autonomy from local school district1.51.5Gain autonomy in personnel matters1.42.0Gain autonomy from state laws and regulations1.41.6 Finally, the at-risk school directors view their charter school status as a way to seek public funding and grants as a way to attract more students. This finding is consistent with the fact that all but one of the schools that were converted from existing private schools serving at-risk students. Directors of conversions schools view their status as new charter schools as a vehicle for attracting more students and more resources. These findings parallel a national study of charter schools conducted by the U.S. Department of Education that found: Charter schools are started in order to realize an educational vision; have more autonomy . . . ; serve a special population; receive public funds, engender parent involvement and ownership; or attract students and parents. The evaluation team also was interested in identifying obstacles sponsors faced in establishing charter schools. We reviewed survey questions from a study of charter schools conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and from a study of several charter schools in Minnesota. Because we used many of the same items in our survey of Texas directors, we can compare our results with findings from the national study and the Minnesota study. To rate the importance of challenges involved in opening charter schools, we used a three-point rating scale with very difficult scored as 3, difficult scored as 2, and not at all difficult scored as 1. Thus the higher the mean score reported in Table III.2, the more of an obstacle it presents. Texas charter school directors and participants in the national and Minnesota studies identified the same four obstacles as difficult; however, Texas directors rated them as more difficult obstacles than did respondents in the other studies. For example, all but one of the Texas directors found the lack of start-up funding to be a difficult or very difficult obstacle, compared to only 59 percent in the national study and 81 percent in the Minnesota study. The lack of planning time was perceived as the second most difficult obstacle in the national and Texas studies. Fourteen Texas directors found lack of planning time to be difficult or very difficult. Lack of planning time was a much larger barrier for the Texas non-at-risk schools, probably because these schools are new start-ups rather than conversion schools. Inadequate operating funds were deemed to be a difficult or very difficult obstacle by 14 of the Texas directors, (85 percent) compared with 69 percent of respondents in the Minnesota survey and 42 percent for the national study. Again, this was more pronounced with the non-at-risk schools. As shown in Table III.2, neither the at-risk nor the non-at-risk charter schools experienced much community opposition to their opening. Directors of Texas non-at-risk charter schools reported more opposition from local boards than directors of at-risk charter schools. Table III.2 Obstacles Involved in Opening Charter Schools Type of ObstacleAt-Risk Charter Schools Mean ScoreNon-At-Risk Charter Schools Mean ScoreLack of start-up funds2.43.0Inadequate facilities2.32.2Inadequate operating funds2.22.5Lack of planning time1.92.5Texas SBOE approval process1.72.0Federal education regulations1.71.2TEA regulations1.61.3Hiring teaching staff1.51.3State or federal health and safety regulations1.51.3Internal conflicts1.21.5Local board opposition1.12.2Teacher association resistance1.01.2Community opposition1.01.2 Governance, Finances, and Support Governance Each charter school is required to establish a governing board, but the number of members, method of election, and other matters are within the discretion of the charter school. Table III.3 summarizes characteristics of the governing bodies of charter schools. The typical number of board members in public school districts in Texas is seven. The average number of board members for at-risk charter schools is 9.8; non-at-risk charter school boards are slightly smaller with an average size of 7.3. The range in board size varies from a high of 16 members to a low of three members. Table III.3 Characteristics of Charter School Governing Board Members At-Risk Charter Schools MeanNon-At-Risk Charter Schools MeanBoard Size9.87.3Sex Women Men 4.3 5.4 4.3 3.0Ethnicity Anglo African-American Hispanic Other 3.4 1.8 4.4 0.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 0.3Other Parents of Students Teachers in the Charter School 1.5 0.2 2.0 0.2 Although Table III.3 seems to indicate a high degree of racial diversity among governing board members, an examination of Table III.4 shows that this is not always the case. Nine of the 16 charter school boards are racially diverse, meaning that two or more ethnic groups share almost equal representation. The other seven boards are dominated by a single racial group. For example, one board has 13 members with 11 African-American members. All nine members of another board are Hispanic. Five of six members of a third charter school board are Anglo. Every board includes at least one woman and one man. Parents serve on slightly more than half of the boards. One board has eight parents and another has five. Three of the 16 boards include teachers. In each case there is one teacher on the board. Table III.4 Numbers of Charter School Board Members by Race and Ethnicity African-Am.HispanicAngloOtherTOTALAcademy of Transitional Studies08109American Institute for Learning1510016Blessed Sacrament Second Chance01203Building Alternatives31307Dallas Can!435012Girls and Boys Prep1101113Medical Center21205One-Stop Multiservicen/an/an/an/an/aRenaissance School21317George I. Sanchez09009Seashore Learning Center01506SER-Nios13307Texas Academy of Excellence705012UH Technology 51006Waco Charter Schooln/an/an/an/an/aWest Houston Charter School12407Raul Yzaguirre0102012 There is a marked informality in the governance structure for the charter schools. No uniform method has been established for the selection of board members. In some cases, the board is simply the existing board of a nonprofit organization. In one charter school, four of the members are elected by the parents. In most other cases, however, selection is quite informal through a volunteer or nomination process. At one charter high school, friends of the school are invited to serve on the board. The term of office for charter school board members is generally three years, similar to the term of office for public school district trustees. In a few cases it is one year, and at the other extreme, service on the board is continuous. Most boards meet monthly, but there are instances in which a board meets twice a month, every other month, or quarterly. Most boards elect a president or a chair and a vice-president or vice-chair. One board includes a faculty coordinator, and another includes a fundraising chair. The role of the board is similar to the typical public school district board, although the charter school board is linked more to the operations of the school. The principal role, as enunciated by one of the charter school directors, is to develop policy and provide support and assistance. One of the charter schools reported that the board is also responsible for fundraising. Finances According to the ˿Ƶ, charter school start-up funds ranged from $0 to $100,000. As shown in Table III.5, the median amount of start-up money for at-risk schools was $15,850; however, the mean was $33,061, reflecting great differences among the schools. The non-at-risk schools received an average of $33,000 in start-up funds; however, the median amount was zero dollars. Table III.5 Self-reported Start-up Funds for Charter Schools, 1996-97 Amount of Start-up FundsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-At-Risk Charter Schools$013$15,000 - $15,85040$40,000 - $45,00020$60,000 - $65,00011$90,000 - $100,00011 Analysis of charter school revenue budgets shows the average federal revenue to be 12.4 percent, and state aid to be 67.6 percent. The remaining 20 percent is from other sources including grants, contributions form chartering organizations, and local fundraising. While 10 of the charter schools received no funds from parents, parent donations averaged 1.4 percent of the budget at the remaining schools. Revenue from private grants ranged from 0 to 21 percent, with a mean of 5.1 percent. Not all charter schools provided information on start-up funds. Nine of 11 at-risk schools and five of six non-at-risk charter schools reported start-up funding as part of the revenue budget. The majority of charter schools (12) received no financial assistance from their chartering organizations. The five schools that did acquire funds from their chartering organizations received an amount ranging from 4 to 55 percent of their total budgets. Although most chartering organizations were unable to provide monetary support, 44 percent of the schools reported they received in-kind support such as equipment, space, or volunteers. All but two charter schools were eligible for federal Title 1 funding. With the exception of one school that was late in filing the paperwork, all eligible schools received funding during the 1996-97 school year. Support from the Community and Business Partnerships Most charter schools reported some type of community and business partnership (see Table III.6). Almost three-quarters of charter schools receive support from business and community groups for both field trips and equipment donations. In addition, more than half of charter schools use volunteers and mentors. Table III.6 Reported Community and Business Partnerships* Type of PartnershipNumber of At-Risk Charter SchoolsNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsField trips75Equipment donations84Monetary donations74Donations of time (volunteers)64Mentoring71Tutoring62Job shadowing31* Because charter schools reported community and business partnerships in multiple categories, the total number of partnership arrangements exceeds the number of charter schools. Personnel, Programs, and the Impact on Public School Districts Directors The survey asked charter school directors several questions concerning their qualifications. One-third of charter schools require mid-management certification for the position. However, most directors hold degrees beyond the bachelor, and four hold doctorates. The majority of directors have prior experience teaching in public and/or private schools. Among at-risk charter school directors, the average length of teaching experience in public schools was 8.7 years, and the average in private schools was 3.6 years, for an overall average teaching experience of 12.3 years. The non-at-risk directors have slightly more teaching experience, with 9.2 years in public schools and 5.3 years in private school for a total of 14.5 years of teaching experience. The at-risk school directors have more administrative experience (9.5 years) than the non-at-risk school directors (8.4 years). Twenty percent of the charter directors also teach in their own charter schools. Table III.7 Years of Teaching and Administrative Experience of Charter School Directors Type of ExperienceYears of Experience for At-Risk Charter School DirectorsYears of Experience for Non-At-Risk Charter School DirectorsPublic school Teaching Administration 8.7 5.9 9.2 4.7Private school Teaching Administration 3.6 3.6 5.3 3.7Total Teaching Administration 12.3 9.5 14.5 8.4 Teachers According to charter school directors, all charter school teachers hold a college degree (associate or higher), and half are certified or vocationally licensed. According to the directors, the turnover rate for teachers in at-risk schools is 25 percent, measured by teachers who started teaching in Fall 1996 and did not return for the 1997-98 school year. The turnover rate is 30 percent for teachers in non-at-risk schools. About half of those who left were reported to have taken positions in other public or private schools. In addition, 6 percent of teachers in non-at-risk schools and 13 percent of teachers in at-risk schools left their positions before the end of the 1996-97 school year, either voluntarily or through termination. Curriculum and Instruction Charter school directors were asked about the curriculum and teaching practices employed in their schools. Their responses indicate that charter schools use a variety of curricular approaches. Fourteen of the sixteen schools use curriculum materials approved for use in Texas public schools; however, only one school uses these materials exclusively. Fifteen schools have adopted other curriculum models either as their primary mode or as a supplement. In four schools, teachers have developed their own curriculum. As shown in Table III.8, the most common educational practices employed ib charter schools are use of technology to enhance student learning, individualized learning, performance-based assessments, and multi-age groupings. Table III.8 Educational Practices Used in Charter Schools* Type of Educational PracticeNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeUse of technology for learning66Individualized instruction84Performance-based assessments84Multi age grouping66Mainstreaming (special education)64Alternative assessments64Experiential learning63Project-based learning62Changes in daily schedule53Changes in yearly schedule43Graduation/learning standards32Changes in weekly schedule32Community service requirements22After-school schedule31Use of simulations31* Because charter school directors provided responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Impact Advocates of charter schools believe that they affect public schools by serving as models for innovation and positive change. The survey asked charter school directors to provide their perspective about the impact of charter schools on public schools. Six of the 16 charter school directors indicated that they were aware of changes in the school districts from which they draw their students. When asked to describe those changes, however, only four directors provided comments. Three pointed to the development of campus charter schools within public school districts in Houston. Another noted that a public school district was seeking to build a high school that would replicate the curriculum and technology of the two charter schools located in the district. Generally, charter school directors viewed relations between school districts and charter schools as either benign or cooperative. Only two directors indicated that the relationship was hostile, six reported that it was neutral, and eight reported that the relationship was somewhat cooperative or cooperative. Parents and Students Parents We asked charter school directors about the types of parent participation practices in charter schools. The responses are reported in Table III.9. Nearly all schools use regularly scheduled parent-teacher meetings, and most offer opportunities for parents to volunteer at the school. The least-used practices are requirements for parents to work at the school, to sign homework, and to serve as teachers. Charter school directors also answered questions about the extent of parent involvement in various school activities. As noted in Table III.10, the percentage of parents involved in fundraising is higher than for any other activity. Parents are also involved in mentoring students, working as teaching assistants, assisting with the maintenance of the physical plant, and coordinating community projects. Table III.9 Parent Participation Practices in Charter Schools* Parent Participation PracticeNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeRegularly scheduled parent-teacher meetings87Opportunities for parents to volunteer at the school77Regularly scheduled parent meetings66Regularly scheduled home-school communications66Parents serving on school-wide committees64Written plan or contract for parent involvement63Offering workshops or support groups for parents43Offering parent at-home learning activities to support school objectives33Parents acting as teacher/instructors24Requiring parents to sign homework23Requiring parents to work at the school22*Because charter school directors reported responses in multiple categories, the total number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Table III.10 Type of Parent Involvement in Charter School Activities Type of Parent InvolvementAverage Percent of At-Risk Charter Schools Average Percent of Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsFundraising9.47.4Mentoring5.12.5Maintenance of physical plant5.02.0Teaching assistants3.82.2Community projects3.82.0Tutoring1.62.0Class presentations1.31.4 Students At the conclusion of the 1996-97 school year, charter school directors reported a total of 2,498 students enrolled. Charter school directors anticipate that 79 percent of those students will return for the Fall 1997 semester. More than three-quarters of their schools had wait lists in September 1996 because the number of applicants exceeded their enrollment caps. All schools expect to have wait lists for the Fall 1997 semester. Most schools plan to expand by adding classes and faculty, and about half expect to add grade levels. Charter school directors estimate that, of the students enrolled in Fall 1996, a total of 669 left charter schools, for an attrition rate of over 21 percent. Table III.11 below indicates the reasons given by charter school directors for student attrition. As is evident in Table III.11, charter school directors do not see a single overwhelming reason for student attrition. Half of the students who left did so for reasons categorized as other. Some of the at-risk schools have a revolving admission whereby students come to school only until they pass the GED exam or TAAS exit exam. This accounts for some of the high numbers reported under other reasons for leaving at-risk schools. Student attrition for disciplinary problems is a more common reason for leaving the non-at-risk schools than the at-risk schools. The most common reasons for attrition from at-risk schools are moving and student employment. Students are more likely to leave the non-at-risk schools are because the school did not meet their academic expectations, according to charter school directors. Table III.11 Students Who Left Charter Schools in 1996-97, Reported by School Directors* Reasons for Students Leaving Charter SchoolsNumber of At-Risk Charter School StudentsNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter School StudentsReasonNumberPercentNumberPercentDisciplinary problems75143225Moved71131612School did not meet academic expectations30.65140Student got a job41800Transportation problems1431411Academic problems29586Medical reasons7122Other3005665TOTAL540129* Number of students leaving charter schools is a self-reported number from the charter school directors. Several directors cite lack of parent involvement and family problems as a reason for attrition. One director explains: Most students had their own concept of what a charter school should be, but the environment was not for them because we require strict regulations on dress, attitude, and behavior. Student recruitment is an integral part of maintaining enrollment at charter schools. Charter schools use a variety of recruitment techniques. Flyers, parent meetings, and radio announcements are the most often employed approaches, according to charter school directors. Table III.12 Student Recruitment Techniques Reported by Charter Schools* Recruitment TechniqueNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using TechniqueNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter Schools Using TechniqueFlyers86Parent meetings66Radio announcements73Posters33Newspaper advertising23Other41* Because charter school directors responded in multiple categories, the number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Student Discipline Open-enrollment charter schools are released from many requirements in the Texas Education Code for recording and reporting disciplinary data. The self-reported data in this section come from the survey of charter school directors and is not directly comparable with data gathered from other public schools. One way of measuring this aspect of the school experience is the time which administrators and teachers spend on student discipline. The survey results show that, according to charter school directors, they and their teachers expend 15 percent of their time on discipline, on average. However, there is great variation among the schools. In a few cases, teachers and administrators spend as little as five percent of their time on discipline. At the other extreme are a few schools in which time spent on discipline exceeds 25 percent, and the director of one school reports that teachers and administrators spend as much as 45 percent of their time on discipline. Nonetheless, no director rated discipline as a very serious problem and about 40 percent rated the problem as somewhat serious. The remainder reported that it was not very serious. One-third of the directors reported that classes are almost never disrupted by discipline problems. An additional 20 percent said they were disrupted occasionally. However, almost half indicated that there were disciplinary class disruptions two to three times per week and daily. One-fourth of the directors indicated that student discipline problems did not interfere with the educational process. The remaining 75 percent, however, reported that discipline problems interfered with the educational process occasionally or pretty regularly. Charter school directors responses to questions about various disciplinary incidents appear in Table III.13. Again, there are wide variations in the number of disciplinary incidents. Some schools reported none whereas others indicated a relatively high number of incidents. Seven of the 16 school directors report more than one incident involving drugs, five report more than one incident involving alcohol, while only three have had trouble with knives. No director reported any incident with guns. Table III.13 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools At-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-At-Risk Charter SchoolsType of IncidentNumber PercentNumber PercentAlcohol2216125Drugs11282250Knives32125Guns0000TOTAL1374 Summary Vast differences exist among the open-enrollment charter schools in Texas. This is not surprising because the schools have different target populations, different locales, different curricula, different resources, and different goals and objectives. While there is considerable variation in student discipline, student attrition, and parent involvement, the survey reflects a high degree of similarity on several issues. Directors report that the primary purpose of establishing a charter school is to realize an educational vision and to gain autonomy in educational programming. The lack of start-up funds and operating funds is the primary obstacle reported by all charter school directors. Each charter school has a governing board, and the boards are characterized by informality in selection and function. Charter school teachers are diverse in their preparation as educators. Teachers use Texas curriculum materials extensively, though not exclusively. Charter school directors are experienced educators with many years of teaching and administrative experience. Charter school directors report that relations between public school districts and the charter schools are generally benign or cooperative. Charter schools structure opportunities for parent participation into the organizational format of the school, primarily to raise funds. Charter school directors report wide variations in the number of disciplinary incidents, but none of the directors reported that discipline problems on their campus were very serious. Section IV: Parental Demographics, Participation, and Satisfaction Levels Introduction To gain a better understanding of why parents choose to send their children to charter schools, the types of parents who send their children to charter schools, and the level of satisfaction with the newly established charter schools, the evaluation team developed a survey of charter school parents. The University of North Texas Survey Research Lab conducted 513 telephone interviews of charter school parents between January and March 1997. A survey of a comparison group of parents also was undertaken. With the assistance of the ˿Ƶ, up to 10 matching comparison schools were identified for each charter school on the basis of grade level, ethnicity, and the proportion of students who are classified as economically disadvantaged. The evaluation team requested student home phone numbers from the schools. Commissioner Mike Moses sent a letter to the principals of comparison schools and to the superintendents of their districts underscoring the importance of the study and requesting their cooperation. In most cases, comparison school principals agreed to furnish copies of their student rosters. Except for one charter school, the evaluation team was able to obtain at least one matched comparison school for each of the 17 charter schools. Random samples of parents from the comparison schools were drawn using the schools student rosters. These parents were interviewed with an instrument similar to the one that was used in the charter school parent interviews. The University of North Texas Survey Research Lab completed 192 comparison group parent interviews. Several weaknesses in the comparison group sample result in corresponding weaknesses in the conclusions that this research can support. First, the strategy of matching traditional public schools to charter schools produces a weaker research design than randomly drawing representative samples of parents from the same population that contains charter school students and their families. Second, there were substantial non-response problems with parents whose children attend at-risk charter and comparison schools. There also were uneven rates of response across schools with non-at-risk charter school parents. The small numbers of parent interviews raise the concern that those who did respond are not representative of parents of students in these schools as a whole. Third, though the evaluation team made repeated efforts to obtain student rosters, some of the comparison schools did not supply them. Consequently, a portion of the comparison sample was not interviewed. This resulted in a disproportionately large number of Hispanic parents being included in the comparison group sample, and, correspondingly, in an under-representation of African-American and Anglo parents. In a perfect world, there would have been no non-response problems across schools and there would have been perfect compliance from the comparison schools with requests for student rosters. In order to compensate for these two problems in the interest of gaining some insight into how charter school parents compare with their nonchoosing counterparts, the team adopted two strategies. Responses from the non-at-risk parents whose children attend charter schools have been weighted to reflect the proportions of students enrolled in each of the non-at-risk charter schools. For instance, responses from parents of students attending the Renaissance Charter School, which had a much higher response rate than our other non-at-risk charter schools, have been given a weight less than 1 so that their responses in the aggregate reflect the size of this school relative to parents with children in the other non-at-risk charter schools. Responses of parents at the other charter schools have been given weights greater than 1 to compensate for their lower response rates. Here is a table with the weights by school for the non-at-risk charter school respondents. SchoolNumber of Responses/ Proportion of ResponsesProportion of Students in Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsWeight*Seashore Learning Center29/.1030.0740.67Renaissance Charter School120/.4250.3550.88Medical Center Charter School40/.1420.1460.97Girls and Boys Prep62/.2200.2871.25West Houston Charter School31/.1100.1141.30 *This table presents the weighting system that was used to weight the responses of non-at-risk charter school parents. In each case, the weight appearing in the last column can be multiplied by the proportion of the non-at-risk charter parent responses in the second column to produce the proportions that appear in column 3. For instance, if one multiplies 0.425 (the proportion of all non-at-risk charter parent responses from parents of students attending Renaissance) by 0.88 (the weight assigned to each of these responses), the product is 0.374, which is very close to the proportion of non-at-risk students attending Renaissance (0.355). The effect is to make the contribution of each respondent very nearly proportional to the relative size of his or her childs charter school. These products do not match the school proportions exactly because revised data on the charter schools adjusted the total enrollments, making them somewhat different from the original enrollment estimates that were used to compute the weights. Responses from the non-at-risk comparison group have been weighted to make the income distribution for this group identical to the income distribution of the non-at-risk charter school parents (see footnote following Table IV.4). Data presented in this section are divided into two categories: one pertaining to at-risk charter schools and the other to non-at-risk charter schools. Among the charter school surveys, there are 231 surveys of parents of students in at-risk schools (146 at the eleven conversion high schools and 85 at the four newly established schools) and 282 interviews at the non-at-risk schools. Among the comparison group surveys, 111 pertain to parents of students in non-at-risk schools and 81 to parents of students in at-risk schools. An important collateral reason for dividing the population into two groups is that we have greater confidence in the estimates for the population of students in the non-at-risk charter schools. Response rates were substantially higher for these parents, and the number or parents surveyed was sufficiently large that we can extrapolate from the sample and make estimates for this population more easily than for all charter schools. This discussion in this section addresses the following issues: What are the demographic characteristics of charter school parents and how do they compare with a similar group of nonchoosing parents? How did parents learn about the new charter school? What factors prompted parents to choose a charter school? Are the grades charter school parents give their schools higher than those of the comparison group of nonchoosing parents? How involved are charter school parents in the education of their children in comparison with nonchoosing parents? Demographic Characteristics of Charter School Parents in Comparison with Nonchoosing Parents Ethnicity The large proportion of ethnic minorities served by at-risk charter schools is clearly in evidence in Table IV.1. Over 90 percent of respondents in this parent group identify themselves as ethnic minorities. The ethnic makeup of the comparison group of parents whose children attend at-risk traditional public schools is similar. As noted in Table IV.2, the percentage of Anglo parents whose children attend non-at-risk charter schools is much greater than for their at-risk counterparts, but not as high as for the non-at-risk parent comparison group. While the percentage of African-American parents with students in non-at-risk charter schools is much greater than for the comparison group, the reverse is true with regard to Hispanic students. Table IV.1 Ethnicity Responding Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools EthnicityCharter Parents PercentageComparison Group Parents PercentageAfrican-American25.125.9Anglo6.58.6Hispanic66.261.7Other0.92.5No Response1.31.2 Table IV.2 Ethnicity Responding Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools* EthnicityCharter Parents PercentageComparison Group Parents PercentageAfrican-American35.26.7Anglo52.262.2Hispanic5.630.3Other4.70.0 No response2.30.8*The data in this table have been weighted as explained in the introduction. Income Level Table IV.3 shows that responding parents whose children attend at-risk charter schools are generally poor, with about one-third saying they earn less than $15,000 per year. The percentages for the comparison parent group are almost identical. Table IV.3 Family Annual Income Level Parents of Students at At-Risk Schools Income Charter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentLess than $5,000229.567.4S$5,000 - $9,9992310.089.9$10,000 - $14,9992912.61316.0$15,000 - $19,999219.1911.1$20,000 - $24,9992611.378.6$25,000 - $34,9992611.31113.6$35,000 - $49,999166.967.4$50,000 - $74,99952.256.2More than $75,00020.933.7No response6126.41316.0 By contrast, the incomes of parents whose children attend non-at-risk charter schools are substantially higher, with only six percent reporting incomes of less then $15,000 per year (see Table IV.4 and the explanatory footnote regarding weighting of the responses in the table). Table IV.4 Family Annual Income Parents of Students at Non-At-Risk Schools Income Charter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentLess than $5,00031.165.4$5,000 - $9,99951.8119.9$10,000 - $14,99982.81513.5$15,000 - $19,999124.3109.0$20,000 - $24,999165.798.1$25,000 - $34,9993713.187.2$35,000 - $49,9994214.91715.3$50,000 - $74,9995720.2119.9More than $75,0004616.332.7No response5619.92118.9 highest income levels of any group, while charter school parents of children attending at-risk schools have much lower income levels, levels which vary little from those of their comparison group of nonchoosing parents. Education Level While the parents of children attending at-risk charter schools have less education than the parents of children attending non-at-risk charter schools, they have more education than a comparable group of nonchoosing parents whose children attend traditional public schools (see Tables IV.5 and IV.6). Thus 53 percent of at-risk charter school parents have completed some college as contrasted with 18 percent of the comparison parent group. Likewise, the parents of children attending non-at-risk charter schools have more education than a comparable group of nonchoosing parents whose children attend traditional public schools. While 43 percent of the former say they have a college degree or more, 29 percent of the latter say so. The findings show that choosing parents, whether they choose at-risk charter schools for their children or non-at-risk charter schools, have more education than nonchoosing parents in the comparison group. Table IV.5 Education Level Responding Parent of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Parent Education LevelCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentHigh school or less7935.95670.9Some college11753.21417.7College degree or more2410.9911.4TOTAL22079 Table IV.6 Education Level Responding Parent of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Parent Education LevelCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentHigh school or less41.34843.6Some college15555.53127.7College degree or more12043.23228.6TOTAL279111 Employment Status Over 60 percent of at-risk charter school parents say they are employed full time, with another nine percent reporting part time employment (see Table IV.7). Fifteen percent say they are unemployed. The percentages for the comparison parent group are similar. The employment levels for non-at-risk charter school parents are higher, with nearly three-quarters saying they work full time. Another 12 percent say they work part-time (see Table IV.8). Four percent say they are unemployed. The percentages for the comparison parent group are similar. Table IV.7 Employment Status Responding Parent of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Employment StatusCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentEmployed full time14161.04353.1Employed part time219.1911.1Unemployed3515.21316.0Attending school73.011.2Home-maker2410.41417.3No response310.41417.3TOTAL23194 Table IV.8 Employment Status Responding Parent of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Employment StatusCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentEmployed full time20372.17466.8Employed part time3211.51917.6Unemployed103.554.8Attending school20.810.8Home-maker2810.0119.6No response62.100.3TOTAL281110 Martial Status About half of the responding at-risk charter school parents are married (see Tables IV.9 and IV. 10). Thus choosers are more likely to come from homes where parents are not married. Three-fourths of non-at-risk charter school parents are married. In both cases, the comparison parent group is slightly more likely to be married. Table IV.9 Marital Status Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Marital StatusPercentage of Charter ParentsPercentage of Comparison ParentsMarried58.669.2Separated or divorced26.017.3Never married9.33.7Widowed6.29.9 Table IV.10 Marital Status Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Marital StatusPercentage of Charter ParentsPercentage of Comparison ParentsMarried74.582.3Separated or divorced18.510.1Never married4.23.2Widowed2.84.4 Receiving Public Assistance As noted in Table IV.11, over 40 percent of at-risk charter school parents report having received public assistance. The percentage for the comparison parent group is slightly higher. By contrast, 15 percent of non-at-risk charter school parents say they have ever received public assistance (see Table IV.12). This compares with 22 percent for parents in the comparison group. Table IV.11 Parents Receiving Public Assistance, At-Risk Schools Charter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentHave received public assistance9842.44049.4Have not received public assistance12855.44049.4No response52.211.2TOTAL23181 Table IV.12 Parents Receiving Public Assistance, Non-At-Risk Schools Charter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentHave received public assistance4114.72422.1Have not received public assistance23683.98677.9No response41.400TOTAL281110 Expectations for Oldest Childs Future Respondents were asked what expectations they had for their oldest childs future. The findings are presented in Tables IV.13 and IV.14. The percentages for parents whose children attend at-risk charter schools differ little from those whose children attend at-risk schools in traditional public school districts. About one-fifth in each category see their oldest child attending community college, with two-fifths believing their child will attend a four-year college. Table IV.13 Expectations for Oldest Childs Future Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools ExpectationsCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentWork219.11113.6Military177.456.2Vocational/technical school208.778.6Community college5122.12227.2Four-year college9139.43037.0Other31.344.9No response2812.122.5TOTAL23181 Parents whose children attend non-at-risk charter schools are more ambitious for their oldest childs future. Nearly 70 percent say the child will attend a four-year college, while 57 percent of parents whose children attend non-at-risk traditional public schools say so. Table IV.14 Expectations for Oldest Childs Future Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools ExpectationsCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercentWork124.21311.6Military62.121.5Vocational/technical school72.554.1Community college3211.41614.8Four-year college19569.16357.2Other51.911.1No response248.5109.1TOTAL281110Summary To summarize the demographic discussion, parents of children attending at-risk charter schools differ little from those whose children attend at-risk traditional public schools except with regard to level of education. At-risk charter school parents have slightly more education than parents in the comparison group. Parents whose children attend non-at-risk charter schools differ both from their counterparts whose children attend at-risk charter schools and from a comparison group of nonchoosing parents whose children attend non-at-risk traditional public schools. Non-at-risk charter school parents are more likely to have more education, more apt to be employed full time, less likely to have received public assistance, and hold higher expectations for their childrens education. For the reasons discussed in the introduction, these comparisons should be viewed with caution. Continued research coupled with expansion of the open-enrollment charter school program will contribute added insight into the demographics of choosing versus nonchoosing parents. Access to Information about New Charter Schools It is important to know how parents were contacted and students recruited to the charter schools. Most people reported that they found out about the charter school through their network of friends and relatives. Among the sample of parents of students in the at-risk charter schools, 51 percent said that friends or relatives were the source of their information about the school (data not shown). The media plays approximately the same role for at-risk schools as it does for the non-at-risk schools: 13 percent of respondents in the at-risk sample mentioned newspapers as important. TV or radio were mentioned by six percent. However, public school personnel were mentioned by 14 percent of the at-risk sample, far more frequently than for the non-at-risk schools. This is not surprising as several of the at-risk high school programs are specifically designed to take students who are at risk of suspension or expulsion from traditional public schools. The at-risk charter schools may be serving as alternative education programs. Six percent of parents in the at-risk sample mentioned teachers and five percent mentioned community centers as sources of information. Another six percent found out through other means. Of parents responding to the survey whose children attend non-at-risk schools, 59 percent stated they found out about the charter school through friends or relatives. Newspapers were mentioned by 15 percent of respondents in the sample, while 10 percent mentioned TV or radio. Teachers were the source of information concerning the charter school for six percent of the sample, and other public school personnel were named as a source of information by one percent of the sample. A small number of parents mentioned their church (two percent), a local community center (two percent), or a private school (one percent). Ten percent found out through other means. Reasons for Choosing to Enroll in a Charter School Parents of charter school students answered a series of questions regarding factors important in their decision to enroll their child in a charter school. For parents of students in at-risk schools, educational quality (90 percent mention as important or very important) and class size (82 percent) are the top two considerations (see Table IV.15). Other factors of importance included location, teaching moral values, learning problems at the previous school, and the childs discipline problems at the previous school all are mentioned substantially. For parents whose children attend non-at-risk schools, the factor most frequently mentioned is the educational quality of the school (see Table IV.16). Ninety-four percent of respondents identify this factor as important or very important. The second most frequently mentioned factor is small class size: 88 percent of the parents mention this as important or very important. As noted previously, class sizes are noticeably smaller in charter schools than in traditional public schools. Concern for the childs safety is the third most mentioned factor. The other factors are less influential than for at-risk charter school parents. Table IV.15 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School Percentage Response from Parents of Students Attending an At-Risk School How important were the following factors?Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot ImportantNo AnswerEducational quality of the school61.0 29.03.03.93.0Class size46.835.54.89.53.5Concern for childs safety55.418.65.216.93.9Location of school40.737.27.813.01.3Previous school did not teach moral values36.431.64.819.57.8Child had learning problems at previous school39.822.53.029.45.2Child has friends attending charter school20.826.88.740.33.5Child has discipline problems at previous school31.216.93.542.95.6 The rest of the factors in Tables IV.15 and IV.16 show that while failure to teach morals, a childs learning problems, or a childs discipline problems at previous schools are very important for some parents, they are less important than those previously mentioned. Table IV.16 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School Percentage Response from Parents of Students Attending a Non-At-Risk School How important were the following factors?Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot ImportantNo AnswerEducational quality of the school73.2 20.71.73.21.2Class size59.228.87.23.01.8Concern for childs safety38.824.311.123.72.1Location of school23.532.623.819.40.8Previous school did not teach moral values31.518.79.430.99.4Child had learning problems at previous school28.614.12.348.96.1Child has friends attending charter school17.118.313.350.80.5Child has discipline problems at previous school12.810.54.065.37.5 Parent Satisfaction with Charter Schools Compared with Previous School Parents of children attending at-risk charter schools are much less satisfied with their previous schools than are parents of children in the at-risk comparison group (see Tables IV.17). Only 42 percent of the former give their previous school an A or B compared with 70 percent in the comparison group. Over one-quarter of at-risk charter school parents give their previous school a D or F, the highest level of dissatisfaction for any parent group. Only 11 percent of the at-risk comparison group do the same. Parents whose children attend at-risk schools are twice as likely as the at-risk comparison group to give their previous school a D or F and half as likely to give it an A or B. Parents of children attending non-at-risk charter schools also are relatively dissatisfied with their previous school. While 76 percent of the non-at-risk comparison group give their previous school an A or B, only half as many37 percentof parents in the non-at-risk charter school group do so (see Table IV.18). In other words, the comparison group parents are twice as likely to give their previous school an A or B as the non-at-risk charter school parent group. Nine percent of the latter give their previous school an F whereas zero percent in the comparison group rated their school this low. Thus the level of dissatisfaction expressed by charter school parents with their previous school is much higher than for parents in the nonchoosing comparison group. Table IV.17 Assigning a Grade to the Previous School Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Grade Assigned to Childs Previous SchoolCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercent A4519.51923.5 B5322.93846.9 C5122.11316.0 D3716.078.6 F2510.822.5Not sure510.822.5TOTAL21681 Table IV.18 Assigning a Grade to the Previous School Percent of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Grade Assigned to Childs Previous SchoolCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercent A3211.43027.3 B7326.05449.1 C11440.51917.3 D279.465.1 F258.900.0Not sure103.710.7TOTAL281110Charter school parents were asked to indicate their relative degree of satisfaction with various components of their childs previous schooling. Tables IV.19 and IV.20 list their responses. Respondents whose children attend at-risk schools express the greatest level of dissatisfaction with parent input on how the school was run. Slightly more parents of students at non-at-risk charter schools report dissatisfaction with how much say they had at the previous school. Charter school parents also generally express relatively high dissatisfaction with discipline at their childrens previous school. Regarding the emphasis on learning, teachers, and relationships between teachers and parents at the former school, satisfaction levels for parents at both at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools are near 50 percent. The findings in these tables thus portray some discontent with the previous school, but not extreme discontent. Table IV.19 Parents Satisfaction with Aspects of Childs Previous School Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Charter ParentsComparison ParentsAt your childs previous school, how satisfied were you with Satisfied Partly Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Partly Satisfied Not SatisfiedParents having an adequate say in how school was run?44.526.129.423.749.328.0Discipline?50.516.233.323.848.827.8Priority placed upon learning?50.921.227.827.850.621.5Teachers?50.521.628.028.851.220.0Parent/teacher relations?53.718.128.224.761.713.6 Table IV.20 Parents Satisfaction with Aspects of Childs Previous School Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Charter ParentsComparison Group ParentsAt your childs previous school, how satisfied were you with: Satisfied Partly Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Partly Satisfied Not SatisfiedParents having an adequate say in how school was run? 36.2 25.5 38.4 29.4 48.8 20.7Discipline?44.624.131.336.946.515.9Priority placed upon learning? 47.3 27.8 24.9 59.8 31.5 8.8Teachers?45.630.523.941.349.58.8Parent/teacher relations?48.128.723.246.844.98.0 Charter school parents were asked after four months experience with their new school how satisfied they are with their choice. In comparison with their previous school, the charter school earns high marks from parents (see Tables IV.21 and IV.22). Parents whose children attend at-risk charter schools are much happier, with over half giving the school an A and more than 85 percent giving it an A or B. Only 20 percent of these same parents gave an A to their previous school. This level of satisfaction is higher than for their respective comparison group. Indeed, this is the highest level of satisfaction for all respondent groups. Parents whose children attend non-at-risk charter schools also are much more pleased with their present school than their previous school. Nearly 80 percent give the new charter school an A or B, whereas only 37 percent gave their previous school an A or B. Table IV.21 Assigning a Grade to the Present School Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Grade Assigned to Childs Previous SchoolCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercent A11553.21923.5 B6931.93846.9 C188.31316.0 D41.878.6 F41.822.5Not sure62.722.4TOTAL21681 Table IV.22 Assigning a Grade to the Present School Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Grade Assigned to Childs Previous SchoolCharter ParentsComparison ParentsNumberPercentNumberPercent A12332.83027.3 B7446.55449.1 C1910.61917.3 D41.665.1 F42.600.0Not sure75.810.7TOTAL231110 Parents were asked where their child would have gone to school if the charter school had not been available in 1996-97. Among the parents of students in at-risk charter schools, 65 percent said their child would have gone to traditional public school. Dropping out was the second most common answer, with 12 percent of parents mentioning this as the most likely alternative to the charter school. Nine percent mentioned private schools, and five percent mentioned public magnet schools. Even among parents of students at non-at-risk charter schools, 70 percent said their child would have attended a traditional public school if the charter option were not available. Private schools were second at 20 percent; five percent mentioned magnet schools; and another five percent mentioned home schooling. It is difficult to know precisely what parents would choose if all the alternatives were available at no expense. In sum, parent responses show that both at-risk and non-at-risk charter school parents are much more satisfied with, and give higher grades to, their new school than their previous school. Parent Involvement The survey included a series of questions about parent involvement in their childrens education. Nearly half of parents of students attending at-risk charter schools report that they help their children with homework almost every day or every day (data not shown). About 29 percent say they seldom do so. Parents with children attending non-at-risk charter schools are more frequent helpers with homework. Fifty-seven percent report that they help almost every day or every day, while 15 percent say they seldom do. TV watching is believed by some to be inversely correlated with success in school. Forty-six percent of charter school parents in the sample whose children attend at-risk schools say they restrict their childrens television viewing. This compares with 61 percent for the comparison parent group (see Table IV.23). In response to a question about how much television their children watch on a typical school day, 13 percent of at-risk charter school parents state that their children watch less than an hour of television, 37 percent say one to two hours per day, 37 percent say between two and four hours per day, eight percent say more than four hours per day (data not shown). Another seven percent are unsure. Table IV.23 Restrictions on the Amount of Time Child Is Permitted to Watch TV Percentage of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools Do you restrict the amount of time your child watches TV?Charter ParentsComparison ParentsYes46.061.2No54.038.3 Parents of children attending non-at-risk charter schools are much more inclined to limit their childrens TV viewing. Nearly three-fourths say they do (see Table IV.24). For the parents in the non-at-risk schools, the disparity between their responses and the comparison parent group is much less than it is for the parents of students in the at-risk charter schools. Parents of non-at-risk charter students report substantially fewer hours of television watching for their children (data not shown). Table IV.24 Restrictions on the Amount of Time Child is Permitted to Watch TV Percentage of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools Do you restrict the amount of time your child watches TV?Charter ParentsComparison ParentsYes72.064.2No28.035.8 Charter school parents report that they were active in their childs former school and continue to be active in the charter school. Parents of students in at-risk charter schools show little difference in involvement in the former school and the charter school. Likewise, there is little difference in their involvement when compared with the comparison parent group except for more involvement in the parent-teacher organization (PTO) (see Table IV.25). Table IV.25 Parent Activities at the School Percent of Parents of Students Attending At-Risk Schools ActivityCharter School Parents Old SchoolCharter School Parents New SchoolComparison Parents Current SchoolParent-teacher conferences82.173.081.5Class/school activities52.555.163.0PTO meetings52.851.351.9Involvement with the PTO27.428.623.5Participation in a booster organization13.010.314.8 Parents of children in non-at-risk charter schools are more involved in various school activities than any other respondent group (see Table IV.26). Table IV.26 Parent Activities at the School Percent of Parents of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Schools ActivityCharter School Parents Old SchoolCharter School Parents New SchoolComparison Parents Current SchoolParent-teacher conferences93.689.585.7Class/school activities80.180.777.7PTO meetings74.980.365.9Involvement with the PTO65.962.446.1Participation in a booster organization17.222.424.4 Section V: Student Satisfaction The evaluation team designed a survey to gain information about students reasons for choosing their school as well as their level of satisfaction with the school. A copy of the questionnaire appears in Appendix C. During the months of April and May 1997, questionnaires were delivered to ten charter schools having grades 7 through 12. (Because of their reading ability and limited experience with any school, elementary school students did not participate in the survey.) The self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires were completed during class time by all students who had returned signed parental permission slips or were at least 18 years of age. In addition, the evaluation team asked students in four public schools to complete the questionnaire. Each of these four comparison public attendance-zone schools was chosen because the demographics of its student body was similar to those of at least one of the charter schools. All charter schools serving secondary students except one (Academy of Transitional Studies) participated in the survey. Altogether 637 charter school students and 447 students in comparison schools completed questionnaires. Table V.1 shows the response rates for each of the ten charter schools. Table V.1 Student Survey Response Rate SchoolNumber of Students EnrolledNumber of Students RespondingPercent of Enrollment RespondingNon-at-risk schools: Girls and Boys Prep Renaissance West Houston 241 298 96 33 144 12 13.7 48.3 12.5At-risk schools: Am. Institute for Learning Blessed Sacrament Building Alternatives Dallas Can! George I. Sanchez One-Stop Multiservice Raul Yzaguirre 92 136 99 269 384 117 98 40 56 78 110 37 37 90 43.5 41.2 78.8 40.9 9.6 31.6 91.8TOTAL1,83063734.8 The surveyed charter school students range in age from 10 years to 22 years, with an average age of 16.4. Fifty-four percent of the students are female, 17.9 percent are Anglo, 15.3 percent are African-American, 54.9 percent are Hispanic, 1.3 percent are Asian, and 10.7 percent are either of mixed race or did not provide information about their race. Respondents are equally distributed across grades 7 through 12, and include students enrolled in programs designed to prepare them for the General Educational Development certificate exam (roughly 15 percent in each grade). Seven of the ten schools surveyed target at-risk high school students, and the other three schools focus on non-at-risk students. The needs and desires of the students in these two type of schools tend to differ. The two types of schools, therefore, are analyzed separately. There are 449 students in the seven at-risk schools who completed the survey, and 189 in the three non-at-risk schools. All of the non-at-risk schools include middle-school students (grades 6-9), while only one of the at-risk schools includes middle-school students. For this reason, students in the non-at-risk schools tend to be younger (average age 14.4 years) than those in the at-risk schools (average age 17.3 years). The responses have been weighted to represent the each schools proportion in the population. Table V.2 presents the characteristics of the two samples, and Table V.3 presents the weights for each school. Table V.2 Characteristics of the Charter School Sample CharacteristicsPercentage of Students Attending a Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolPercentage of Students Attending an At-Risk Charter SchoolRace African American Anglo Hispanic Other 38.1 45.0 4.7 12.2 5.7 6.4 76.0 11.9Gender Female Male 58.2 41.8 51.3 48.7Average age14.417.3 Table V.3 Distribution of Responses across Schools Weights Used to Balance Responses SchoolsOriginal Number of ResponsesWeightWeighted ResponsesNon-at-risk schools Girls and Boys Prep Renaissance West Houston  33 144 12 2.14 0.62 2.38 71 89 29At-risk schools Am. Institute for Learning Blessed Sacrament Building Alternatives Dallas Can! George I. Sanchez One-Stop Multiservice Raul Yzaguirre 40 56 78 110 37 37 90 0.86 0.91 0.48 0.92 3.89 1.19 0.41 34 51 37 101 144 44 37 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School There are a number of reasons a student may choose to attend a charter school. The survey offered the students eight possible reasons and asked them to rank the importance of each in their decision to attend the charter school (see Table V.4). Among the students attending at-risk charter schools, parents had little to do with their decision to attend the school: only 13.2 percent say parent persuasion is the most important reason. Far more important to these older students is that the teachers at the charter school would give them more attention than they had received elsewhere (73 percent list this as one of the three most important reasons). Almost of equal relevance to these students is their belief that the charter schools classes better fit their needs (69.1 percent list this as one of the three most important reasons). Unlike non-at-risk school students, 64.3 percent of the at-risk school students say that one of the three most important reasons for switching schools is that they had been in trouble in their previous school. Among the students at non-at-risk schools, the reason selected most frequently as most important is that their parents wanted them to go to the charter school: 38.2 percent of the respondents say this is the most important reason, and nearly three-fourths give it first, second, or third priority. The reason chosen second most often is that the students felt they would get more attention from teachers at the charter school than they had been receiving in their previous school: 64.3 percent rank this as being among the top three reasons. Other important reasons among non-at-risk school students include a sense that the classes offered at the charter school would be more fitting to their needs and that the charter school offered better teachers. Table V.4 presents the average ranking of each reason for students in at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools. Table V.4 Reasons for Choosing a Charter School Students in At-Risk SchoolsStudents in Non-At-Risk SchoolsReasonMean Rank*Percent Listing Among Top 3 ReasonsMean Rank*Percent Listing Among Top 3 ReasonsParent persuasion4.146.82.772.0More attention from teachers2.873.03.164.3Better teachers3.164.83.657.4Classes fit needs better2.969.13.754.2Trouble makers at previous school3.364.33.847.8Friends going to charter school5.825.54.935.2Better location5.034.04.931.5Trouble at previous school3.264.35.629.8* Mean rank out of 8 where 1 is the most important reason and 8 is the least important reason. It is not important either for the non-at-risk nor at-risk school students in the survey that their friends went to the charter school. Nor is it particularly relevant that the charter school is conveniently located. Not surprisingly, older students have more say in their education than do younger students. When asked whose idea it was for the student to attend the charter school, 53.0 percent of the non-at-risk school students say it was a joint decision between them and their parents, 27.4 percent say their family made the decision, and 10.2 percent say that they made the decision themselves. Among at-risk school students, however, the majority say they made the decision themselves (46.8 percent), although 30.7 percent say their family also was involved in the decision. Only ten percent of the older students say their family had made the decision without involving them. Evaluation of the Charter School The survey was administered near the end of the school year. Students were asked to compare their charter school with the school they would otherwise have attended. Table V.5 presents the percentage of students who believe their non-at-risk charter school is better than other schools on a number of factors and Table V.6 presents the same for students attending at-risk charter schools. More than half of the non-at-risk school students and nearly three-fourths of the at-risk school students say they found the charter school to be better than other schools in terms of offering smaller classes, teachers who care about students, teachers who give personal attention to their students, and all-around good teachers. Table V.5 Students Comparison of Non-At-Risk Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended Percent Responding BetterPercent Responding SamePercent Responding WorsePercent Responding Dont KnowSmall class size70.120.65.73.6Teachers care about student56.830.29.03.9Personal attention from teachers54.627.010.97.5Good teachers52.329.313.94.4Feeling of belonging45.536.613.44.5Feeling safe44.640.613.11.7Interesting classes42.232.814.910.0Principal cares about student40.522.328.48.7Choice of classes38.627.829.04.6Order in classroom27.733.828.110.4Close to home23.935.336.44.4 More than half the at-risk school students and slightly under half (45.5 percent) of non-at-risk school students express a feeling of belonging in the charter school that they had not experienced in their previous school. The at-risk school students also find the classes offered by the charter school more interesting than classes they had taken in previous schools. One should remember that these schools are designed especially to help the student at risk for dropping out or the student who has already left school but wishes to return and graduate. Table V.6 Students Comparison of At-Risk Charter School with School They Would Have Otherwise Attended Percent Responding BetterPercent Responding SamePercent Responding WorsePercent Responding Dont KnowSmall class size74.419.82.53.3Teachers care about student72.421.51.44.8Personal attention from teachers72.520.72.24.6Good teachers73.522.81.32.4Feeling of belonging60.130.24.94.8Feeling safe40.952.11.75.3Interesting classes59.929.35.15.8Principal cares about student45.733.95.015.3Choice of classes44.840.59.84.9Order in classroom47.444.53.64.5Close to home23.847.724.34.1 Some students find their charter school worse in some aspects than the school they would otherwise have attended. This is especially the case for non-at-risk school students, among whom 35.3 percent are displeased with the distance they travel to the charter school, 29.0 percent feel that the charter school does not offer a selection of classes as good as other schools, 28.4 percent feel that the principal in their other school cared more for the students, and 27.7 percent see the classroom as less orderly. The only factor rated worse by at-risk school students is the location of the charter school: 24.3 percent say that their comparison school is more convenient. Nonetheless, aside from these factors, both the at-risk and the non-at-risk students feel that the charter school is at least as good as, if not better than, the school they would otherwise have attended. When asked how satisfied they are in general with the charter school, 56.8 percent of at-risk school students say they are very satisfied, 38.9 are satisfied, and 4.3 percent are dissatisfied. Thirty-five percent of the at-risk school students expect to graduate this year (1996-97), but among the non-graduating students, 63.1 percent say they will definitely return to the charter school in the fall. Students attending non-at-risk schools are somewhat less satisfied with the charter school: 23.0 percent say they are very satisfied, 53.1 say they are satisfied, while 23.9 percent say they are dissatisfied. Among those not graduating, 45.9 percent of the non-at-risk charter school students say they will return to the charter school, and another 24.9 percent are yet undecided about their plans. Table V.7 summarizes students plans for the upcoming school year. Table V.7 Students Plans for the Coming School Year Percentage Response of Students in Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsPercentage Response of Students in At-Risk Charter SchoolsI will graduate2.035.3Among those who are eligible: I will return to charter school I will switch schools I dont know yet 45.9 29.3 24.9 63.1 7.7 29.5 A third measure of satisfaction called upon students to grade their charter school as well as the school they attended the previous year. As mentioned earlier, several of the schools had already existed before they were chartered. Responses of students attending those schools have been omitted from this analysis. For students at the three newly created charter schools serving non-at-risk students, only 16.9 percent feel that their charter school deserves an A, although 42.2 percent give the school a B. Among non-at-risk charter school students, the previous school receives a slightly higher grade than the charter school: 29.0 percent give their old school an A and 27.6 percent give a B. Few of the at-risk school students are attending newly created schools, but among those who are, the charter school scores higher than the school the students attended the previous year. The vast majority of students give their charter school either an A (29.9 percent) or a B (47.2 percent). Only slightly over half the students grade their previous school so highly: 17.8 percent believe their old school deserves an A and 27.8 percent give the school a B. Furthermore, while only 3.7 percent feel the charter school failed, 14.8 percent give their old school an F. Table V.8 presents the distribution of grades. Table V.8 Grades Students Give to Their Schools Grade Assigned by the StudentPercentage Response of Students Attending Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsPercentage Response of Students Attending At-Risk Schools (non-conversion schools)*Charter SchoolPrevious SchoolCharter SchoolPrevious School A16.929.029.917.8 B42.227.647.227.8 C18.624.211.120.8 D13.610.08.018.9 F8.79.23.714.8*This analysis includes only students at newly created charter schools. Overall, students attending at-risk charter schools rate them higher than do students attending non-at-risk charter schools. Students attending at-risk charter schools rate their previous educational experience poorly, but they are pleased, for the most part, with their charter school experience. Despite the relative satisfaction, 7.7 percent of the eligible at-risk charter school students and 29.3 percent of the non-at-risk charter school students do not plan to return to the charter school. Comparison between Charter and Non-Charter Students In order to examine the similarities and differences between charter and non-charter schools, the evaluation team surveyed students in a matched sample of comparison public schools. Comparison schools were selected for their similarity to charter schools with respect to at-risk population and racial/ethnic composition. Table V.9 displays the characteristics of the charter and comparison school groups. Table V.9 Demographics of Charter Schools and the Survey Sample  School GroupFemaleHispanicAfrican- AmericanAngloOtherNon-At-Risk Schools:Percentage ResponsesGirls and Boys Prepcharter48.10.895.80.82.6comparison72.73.293.50.03.3Renaissancecharter46.38.47.077.57.1comparison55.68.58.576.76.3West Houstoncharter44.811.410.476.02.2comparison45.40.09.190.90.0At-Risk Schools:Am. Inst. for Learn.charter50.575.03.121.40.5comparison47.552.525.022.50.0Blessed Sacrament charter41.293.42.92.90.8comparison46.483.93.612.50.0Building Alternativescharter32.352.541.46.10.0comparison34.752.940.07.10.0Dallas Can!charter44.241.652.45.60.4comparison52.881.92.813.91.4George I. Sanchezcharter40.192.91.31.64.2comparison55.6100.00.00.00.0One-Stop Multiserv.charter59.897.40.02.60.0comparison57.193.90.06.10.0Raul Yzaguirrecharter46.9100.00.00.00.0comparison50.697.70.02.30.0 Comparison schools were weighted to reflect a proportion comparable to the proportion represented by their matching charter schools. Students in the non-at-risk comparison schools are slightly younger than the non-at-risk charter school students (13.6 and 14.4 years, respectively). Students in the comparison at-risk charter sample are also slightly younger than students in the at-risk charter school sample (16.2 versus 17.3). The gender make-up of the samples are comparable within the type of school: Both comparison and charter non-at-risk school samples tend to have higher proportions of girls (57.1 and 58.2 percent girls, respectively), while the gender distribution in both comparison and charter at-risk school samples is more balanced (53.1 and 51.3 percent girls, respectively). Table V.10 presents the characteristics of the two comparison samples. Table V.10 Characteristics of Charter School Sample and Comparison Group Sample CharacteristicsNon-At-Risk SchoolsAt-Risk SchoolsCharter SchoolComparison SchoolCharter SchoolComparison SchoolRace Hispanic African-American Anglo Other 4.7 38.1 45.0 12.2 2.7 3.6 80.4 13.3 76.0 5.7 6.4 11.9 82.1 11.8 2.4 3.7Gender Male Female 41.8 58.2 42.9 57.1 48.7 51.3 46.9 53.1Average Age14.413.617.316.2 The sample of students attending charter and comparison non-at-risk schools differ significantly in their racial composition. Students in the public non-at-risk comparison schools who responded to the survey are far more likely to be Anglo than are the non-at-risk charter school students who responded: 80.4 percent of comparison school students versus 45.0 percent of charter students. Moreover, while 38.1 percent of the non-at-risk charter students are African-American, only 3.6 of the comparison students are African-American. Thus, although the differences in age and gender between the comparison and charter non-at-risk school students are relatively modest, the large racial differences in the samples suggest that the comparison non-at-risk sample is a less than ideal comparison for the non-at-risk charter schools. The racial composition of the students in the comparison and charter at-risk schools is fairly similar. The comparison at-risk sample is 82.1 percent Hispanic compared to the charter samples 76 percent. The comparison sample has slightly fewer African-Americans than the charter sample, but in general, the comparison sample seems a reasonable comparison group for the charter sample. Students were asked how satisfied they are with their current school. Students in at-risk charter schools are far more satisfied with their schools than are students attending comparison at-risk schools. Over half the students surveyed in at-risk charter schools are very satisfied (56.8 percent), while barely a quarter of those surveyed in at-risk comparison schools say they are very satisfied (29.2 percent). Few students in either sample are dissatisfied, but those in comparison at-risk schools are twice as likely as those in charter at-risk schools to express dissatisfaction (8.3 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively). Similarly, at-risk charter school students grade their school higher than at-risk comparison school students do. Forty-five percent of the students in at-risk charter schools give their school an A, compared to only 18 percent of students in at-risk comparison schools. Moreover, 87.5 percent of at-risk charter school students give their school an A or B, while just 64.3 percent of students in at-risk comparison schools feel their school deserves such high grades. Table V.11 summarizes the results. Among students surveyed in the non-at-risk schools, charter students are less satisfied with their school than are comparison students. While just as many students in both charter and comparison non-at-risk schools are very satisfied (23 and 27.7 percent for charter and comparison, respectively), charter students are much more likely to express dissatisfaction (23.9 percent compared to comparison students 4.5 percent). Similarly, students in comparison schools give their school a higher grade than do charter students. Over a quarter of students attending comparison schools (28.4) give their school an A compared to 16.9 percent of charter school students. Although few students in either sample are dissatisfied enough to give their school an F, charter school students are three times more likely to do so (8.7 percent) than are comparison school students (2.8 percent). Students differ in their aspirations for the future. A number of factors can help determine the career path an individual decides to take, and one such factor is their educational experience. The career aspirations of students in the non-at-risk charter schools tend to differ slightly from those of comparison school students. While 77.7 percent of comparison school students plan to attend a four-year college when they finish high school, 62.4 percent of charter students have this same plan. The students in non-at-risk charter schools are more likely than comparison school students to say they plan to get a job when they graduate (16.5 compared to 6.3 percent). Comparison and charter students in non-at-risk schools are similar in their intentions to go to college. Table V.11 Satisfaction with Comparison Schools and Charter Schools Percentage Response of Students Attending Non-At-Risk SchoolsPercentage Response of Students Attending At-Risk Schools (non-conversion schools)*Charter SchoolComparison SchoolCharter SchoolComparison SchoolSatisfaction with School: Very satisfied23.027.756.829.2 Satisfied53.167.938.962.5 Not satisfied23.93.44.38.3Grade Assigned to the School A16.928.445.018.0 B42.246.842.546.3 C18.615.67.724.5 D13.66.43.07.8 F8.72.81.83.2*This analysis includes only students at newly created charter schools. The differences between at-risk comparison and charter school students are noteworthy. While 29.1 percent of at-risk school comparison students expect to get a job when they finish high school, 19.6 percent of charter at-risk school students have the same plan. At-risk charter school students are more likely than comparison at-risk school students to say they plan to attend a two-year college (22.8 percent and 11.8 percent, respectively). Students in charter and comparison at-risk schools are equally likely to say they will attend a four-year college (33.3 and 32.7 percent, respectively). At-risk charter school students are more likely than at-risk comparison school students to say they would like to go to college (83.2 and 74.5 percent, respectively). Thus, students in at-risk charter schools seem to have greater intentions to pursue academic studies beyond high school than students in at-risk comparison schools. Table V.12 summarizes the results. Table V.12 Future Goals of Comparison School Students and Charter School Students GoalPercentage Response of Students Attending Non-At-Risk SchoolsPercentage Response of Students Attending At-Risk Schools (non-conversion schools)*Charter SchoolComparison School Charter SchoolComparison SchoolWant to go to college? Yes97.297.383.274.5 No0.00.92.05.1 Dont know2.81.84.820.4Plans for the future: Job16.56.319.629.1 Technical school4.93.68.85.9 Four-year college62.477.732.733.3 Military2.86.35.35.5 Two-year college5.70.922.811.8 Dont know7.65.410.713.9*This analysis includes only students at newly created charter schools. Summary Charter students are relatively pleased with their charter school, although this is less apparent among non-at-risk school students. While 63 percent of eligible at-risk school students and 46 percent of non-at-risk school students plan to return to their charter school, 37 percent of at-risk and 54 percent of non-at-risk school students are either uncertain about their plans or do not intend to return to their charter school. Students find their charter school to be as good or better on a number of factors than the school they would have otherwise attended. Nearly three-fourths of students attending at-risk schools believe their charter school offers (1) smaller classes, (2) teachers who care more about their students, (3) teachers who give more individual attention to the students, (4) teachers who are generally better, (5) more interesting classes, and (6) a stronger feeling of belong to the students. Non-at-risk charter students also believe their charter school offers advantages over other schools; especially in that they offer (1) smaller classes, (2) teachers who care more, (3) more personal attention from the teachers, and (4) overall better teachers. There are a few factors that students feel are not as good at the charter school as at their other school. The only factor that at least a quarter of the students in at-risk charter schools find worse is the location; the charter school is not as close to home. However, over a quarter of students in non-at-risk schools find charter schools worse in terms of distance from home, order in the classroom, choice of classes available, and a principal who cares about the students. Among students attending at-risk schools, the charter schools receive higher marks than comparison schools. Among students attending non-at-risk schools, there is a little difference between the two groups: students in charter schools rate their schools about the same as students in comparison schools. Section VI: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts When the charter school sponsors submitted their initial proposals to the State Board of Education, they were asked to name public school districts that might be impacted by their presence. Forty-three districts were named in one or more proposals as potentially impacted. To assess charter schools actual impact on public school districts, the evaluation team developed a questionnaire (a copy appears in Appendix C). The evaluation team mailed questionnaires to superintendents of the 43 districts. The mailout was followed up by telephone calls to nonrespondents. By September 1997, superintendents or their designees from 40 districts had either returned mail questionnaires or participated in telephone interviews. They answered questions about losing students and teachers from their schools (attrition), changes in funding and programs, and effects on students and parents. Student Attrition Respondents from five of the 40 districts reported that they were aware of students having left neighborhood schools to attend charter schools. Charter schools serving at-risk students drew 60 students in kindergarten through grade 2 from a central Texas district and 27 students in grades 9 through 12 from a Rio Grande valley district. Charter schools serving non-at-risk students drew 191 students in grades 8 through 10 from a metroplex school district, 30 students in kindergarten through grade 5 from a Gulf Coast district, and 23 students in grades 6 through 9 from a Houston-area district. The total number of students reported by the respondents as having left district schools is 331. This figure accounts for only 13 percent of the nearly 2,500 students who attended open-enrollment charter schools during the 1996-97 school year. Respondents from the remaining 35 districts reported that they were not aware of students having left their schools to attend charter schools. Several mentioned that their record-keeping systems were not set up to yield information about students transferring to charter schools. Four said that because the charter school(s) in their area served dropouts, any student attending would already have left the district (rather than transferring out of the district to attend the charter school). Several respondents emphasized that enrollment in their district continues to increase every year. When asked how many students were expected to leave to attend open-enrollment charter schools in the 1997-98 school year, officials from two districts estimated that 10 to 15 additional students would leave. Although the superintendent in a metroplex district gave no estimate for 1997-98 student departures, he noted that an area charter school will add two grade levels; thus, his district has the potential to lose more students than in 1996-97. Teacher Attrition and Class Size In most districts, respondents reported that no teachers had left to teach in open-enrollment charter schools or that information about teacher attrition was unavailable. Officials from two districts reported losing one teacher each to teach in charter schools. Another district lost three teacherstwo to teach at a charter school and one to serve as its principal. No district reported that the presence of charter schools had led to the elimination of teaching positions or to changes in class size. Loss of State Funding In 34 districts, respondents reported that no funds were lost to open-enrollment charter schools or that there was no way of knowing whether funds were lost. Six respondents reported that their district lost funds. Estimates given by officials at five districts were based on state aid times the number of students lost. One district official reported losing $20,000 in Title I funds. Respondents from two districts mentioned that the presence of open-enrollment charter schools did not have a negative financial effect. According to an official from a south Texas district, no money was lost because the district had been paying a private school to serve some of its students before the school became an open-enrollment charter school. Officials from a large urban district reported that loss of funding was not a concern because the districts schools lack space to accommodate its students. One said, It assists us when students go to school in an alternative space. Other Effects on Districts Changes in Programs No district reported making programmatic changes in response to the presence of open-enrollment charter schools. However, a metroplex superintendent reported that there might have been fewer honors and gifted/talented classes at two secondary schools as a result of significant numbers of above-average students attending an area charter school. Officials from several districtsparticularly those located close to charter schools that serve dropouts or at-risk studentsindicated that open-enrollment charter schools have neutral or beneficial effects on their districts programs. The respondent from a south Texas district indicated that, by enrolling dropouts and students who have been expelled, a nearby charter school for at-risk students does a tremendous service and does not compete with any district program. The respondent from a suburban district noted that charter schools tend to fill a niche; its a mission. An official from a large urban district noted that by its contribution to dropout recovery, a local charter school addresses this important issue without killing the public school system. Similarly, a respondent from a Rio Grande valley district said, Were all trying to save as many students as we can. He reported that the districts alternative centerwhich serves dropouts, students with discipline problems, students seeking GEDs, and pregnant girlshas improved, but not because of the presence of an open-enrollment charter school. Effects on Students Officials from two south Texas districts mentioned that open-enrollment charter schools offer options for students who left their schools because they were unable to cope with the traditional high school setting or for other reasons. An official from a large urban district commended the efforts of a local open-enrollment charter school, saying that a charter school in his area works positively in partnership with [the district] by providing a place for students to go when [district] programs dont meet their needs. Effects on Parents and Communities Few respondents noted any effects on parents or communities from open-enrollment charter schools. An official from a suburban district mentioned that enrollment and achievement are high in the district, and that the district has invested in developing strong, active parent involvement programs. The district already has any program that a charter school could offer. Two respondents indicated that the presence of open-enrollment charter schools has had negative effects for their districts. An official from a south Texas district said, The charter school in our district has ... split the community and will hamper efforts to build a public school in that part of the community. A superintendent of a suburban district reported that an area charter school has fewer special education or non-English speaking students and fewer students receiving free or reduced-price lunches than the district. He predicted that the districts changing student demographics will lead some parents to seek other opportunities for public education. Overall Effects on Traditional School Districts Open-enrollment charter schools have had little apparent effect on school districts thus far. Only 13 of 40 respondents to this survey indicated that their district has been affected, either positively or negatively, by charter schools. Six districts portrayed area charter schools as having a positive effect, six as having a negative effect (see Table II.1). Table VI.1 District Officials Reports of Charter Schools Effects Type of EffectNumber of Districts Reporting the Effect*Detrimental effects (n=6)** Loss of funds***6 Loss of students5 Loss of teachers3 Other: losing high-achieving students; causing a split in the community2Beneficial effects (n=6)** Offering options to students5 Relieving pressure from overcrowding or fast growth2*Respondents from several districts named more than one effect. **An additional respondent said her district has experienced both positive and negative effects. ***No actual loss of funds occurred; this is the perception of the respondent. Twenty-seven respondents (67%) gave no indication that area charter schools had any effect on their district. Several factors may account for their silence. First, the number of charter schools is smallonly 17 charter schools (out of 20 approved the previous summer) had opened by the end of the 1996-97 school year. Charter school enrollments tend to be small as well. During the 1996-97 school year no charter school had an enrollment exceeding 300 students; altogether they served fewer than 2,500 studentsone-tenth of one percent of the total population of Texas school children. Because most school districts in Texas are experiencing growth, charter schools do not cause reduced district enrollments. A respondent from a suburban district reasoned that his the district experiences positive growth every year, thus the impact of open-enrollment charter schools is minimal: They cant be a charter school and impact a district as big as this one. A respondent from a Rio Grande valley district is also experiencing rapid growth said This district is growing by leaps and bounds; we welcome the relief. Moreover, systems for tracking student attrition to charter schools exist in only a few districts; therefore officials are largely unaware of the numbers of students who have left their districts schools to attend charter schools. A final reason for open-enrollment charter schools apparent small impact is that they have existed for only one calendar year. During this first year, no district has been forced to transfer payments for students going to charter schools; therefore, districts have thus far experienced no real financial burden from losing students. Summary Two-thirds of the respondents in this survey indicated that their district had experienced minimal or no impact from the presence of open-enrollment charter schools. If located near a charter school serving at-risk students or dropouts, district officials tended to indicate that the impact was neutral or positive. If located near a charter school serving regular or high-ability students, officials were more likely to indicate that the presence of the charter school was problematic in terms of creating divisions in either the student body or in the community. Because no payment to an open-enrollment charter school has yet been required of districts, only a few respondents reported adverse financial effects. Section VII: Performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills The charter school evaluation must consider student scores on assessment instruments described in Texas Education Code Chapter 39, Subchapter B. These are the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests that are administered to students in grades 3 through 8, the TAAS exit-level test, and end-of-course assessments for secondary students in math, English, history, and science. Table VII.1 displays TAAS results by grade level for reading, math, and writing for charter school students in grades where the test is administered. In Table VII.1, N/A means no data are reported because fewer than five students were tested. An analysis of how these results relate to comparable public schools will be forthcoming in 1998. Not all charter school students take TAAS. Students in the Texas Academy of Excellence, Waco Charter School, and the University of Houston Applied Technology Charter School were in grades K through 2 and, therefore, not tested with TAAS. Students in some of the charter high schools were studying to earn a certificate of General Educational Development and left the school after earning the certificate. Table VII.1 Spring 1997 TAAS Results for Charter School Students Percent Meeting Minimum Expectations on TAAS Spring 1997 (all students not in special education)MathReadingWritingAll Tests TakenAcademy of Transitional Studies* grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 21 13 17 46 20 17 29 14 13 9American Institute for Learning* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit 10 N/A 33 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/ABlessed Sacrament Second Chance* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit grade 12 exit 8 15 36 48 56 50 50 71 40 13 23 35 Building Alternatives* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit grade 12 exit 13 0 0 33 N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A 13 0 0 Dallas Can!* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit grade 12 exit 10 14 16 38 33 51 27 33 31 5 16 19Girls and Boys Prep grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 grade 10 exit grade 11 exit 60 40 22 33 27 60 66 51 67 43 55 82 78 46 39 19 31 25Medical Center grade 3 grade 4 grade 5  39 50 N/A 61 64 N/A 36 39 36 N/AOne-Stop Multiservice* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit grade 12 exit 0 0 N/A 33 N/A N/A 33 N/A N/A 15 0 N/ARenaissance grade 8 grade 10 exit 87 82 94 95 90 97 80 79George I. Sanchez* grade 10 exit grade 11 exit grade 12 exit 22 29 22 78 62 46 78 63 N/A 19 34 24Seashore Learning Center grade 3 grade 4 grade 5 75 86 100 88 100 100 100 63 86 100SER-Nios* grade 3 grade 4 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/AWest Houston grade 7 grade 8 86 89 86 89 89 79 84Raul Yzaguirre* grade 7 grade 8 48 46 49 62 50  34 43*Schools at which the majority of students are at risk of dropping out before graduation. Summary TAAS was administered to students in 14 schools. At nine of those schools, the majority of students are at risk of dropping out, while five schools serve predominately non-at-risk students. Among the nine at-risk schools, three had TAAS passing rates of 50 percent or higher on one or more sections for at least one grade level. Two at-risk schools had TAAS passing rates of 70 percent on any section for a grade level. All five non-at-risk schools had TAAS passing rates of 70 percent or higher on at least one section of TAAS for one or more grade levels. Section VIII: Commentary and Policy Challenges The research conducted in the preparation of this report provided the evaluation team with insights into the operation of charter schools and raised several major concerns and questions. We operate from the premise that charter schools, as public agencies, are accountable to the public and must meet the same standards as other public entities. Because charter schools are new in Texas, this first-year evaluation is particularly important in providing insight into how they work and ways in which they can be improved. In this section, we point out some of the implications of our firstyear findings for public policy makers and educators. At the same time, it is important to note that the State Board of Education moved quickly to implement the openenrollment charter school legislation in 1995. Little time was available for extensive publicity about the program and for the development of selection criteria. Because first-year charter school applications were approved on a firstcome, firstserved basis from a small applicant pool, the initial charter school cohort may have significantly different characteristics from later cohorts. The significance of the firstyear study itself is limited by the small number of schools and students involved, the difficulty of securing valid comparison groups, the failure of some schools to comply with requests for data, and the reliance on selfreported data where information was not available from the ˿Ƶ. In this context, the evaluation team recommends that the Texas Commissioner of Education be given the authority to direct both charter and noncharter schools to comply with the evaluation study required by law. Differences Among Charter Schools Although there are major differences among the 17 Texas charter schools, a number of characteristics can be used to group them. For example, some serve high school students, some elementary students; some have predominately Anglo student bodies while minority students make up the majority of the student body in others; some were in existence before receiving a charter while others are newly formed. A striking difference from an evaluation perspective is that some are designed to serve an atrisk student population while others cater to traditional students. Charter schools that seek to educate students who have dropped out of previous public schools or who are at risk for doing so receive praise from parents and students, as well as from administrators in impacted districts. Few educators question whether atrisk students need a curriculum tailored to their special needs and teachers committed to helping them succeed. Charter schools appear to be filling this niche. Our data support the views of proponents that charter schools provide low income parents with choices heretofore only available to the affluent. Further, low income families appear eager to avail themselves of the opportunity to send their children to charter schools. At this point, we can say nothing about the success of the atrisk charter schools in helping their students to achieve higher academic performance, including higher graduation rates. However, if parent and student satisfaction is an important indication, the schools are delivering. Moreover, administrators from impacted public school districts appear pleased with the atrisk charter schools. More controversial are the charter schools designed to attract traditional or non-at-risk students. These schools attract students by offering a change from traditional public schools, and administrators from some impacted districts are less than enthusiastic about their existence. Neither, it appears, are students and their parents universally pleased. A substantial minority of the students and parents at nonatrisk charter schools express concern that the schools have not yet delivered the quality education they expected. At the same time, it is important to note that it may take several years for students to adjust to their new schools and for schools to meet the needs of their new students. Texas open-enrollment charter schools are still in the incubation stage and need to be given a full opportunity to realize their potential. The differences among charter schools suggest that a onesizefitsall mode may be inappropriate. Although the original legislation did not do so, the most recent legislation distinguishes between atrisk and nonatrisk schools. Because of these differences, legislation might also establish differences in funding levels, evaluation standards, and other requirements. Racial and Ethnic Diversity Although the overall enrollment pattern of the 17 openenrollment charter schools shows that they are not skimming off a large Anglo student population but rather serving a large minority population, this is not sufficient evidence alone to conclude that they are integrated to a greater degree than traditional public school districts and campuses. Two additional factors need to be considered. First, threefourths of the initial charter school cohort serve atrisk populations that are heavily minority. Among the other onefourth, several offer a more mainstream curriculum and enroll large numbers of Anglo students. Thus, school-by-school analysis reveals an ethnic clustering similar to the traditional school system that is masked when aggregate data are examined. Second, an important contributing factor to this pattern is the State Board of Educations approval of charter applications limiting the schools service area to a particular geographic region. As is true of many Texas school districts and campuses, to the extent the service area is predominantly onerace, the schools also will be predominantly onerace. Overly restrictive geographic boundaries raise important public policy and legal considerations. While TEC 12.111 requires that each schools charter describe the geographical area served by the program, the State Board of Education may want to consider whether a literal interpretation of this provision that serves to limit admissions to students of a particular race or class is in the spirit of open enrollment. We question whether charter schools should be permitted to designate the areas from which its students can come because such a practice may send a message of exclusion rather than inclusion to parents, students, and the general public. A purpose of open-enrollment charter schools is to overcome past barriers to enrollment, not to perpetuate them. Student Recruitment A combination of four factors contributes to the imbalance of enrollments among the 17 charter schools: (1) a firstcome, firstserved admissions policy, (2) the fact that most parents interviewed for this evaluation learned about charter schools by word of mouth from friends or relatives, (3) limited funding for marketing, and (4) designation of catchment areas. How parents and students learn of the charter school is of particular concern. The most frequently cited form of advertising mentioned by parents was word of mouth. While it is reassuring to know that parents share such information with one another, there is a danger of exclusion when recruitment is a function of whom you know. Friend or relative communication networks also tend to be homogeneous with respect to race and class. Relying solely on this kind of communications for student recruitment means that those who come first may be racially and socioeconomically similar to the existing student body. One way of ensuring that charter schools do not exclude students on the basis of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status would be for schools to publicize aggressively their existence and to select students randomly from a pool of applicants, rather than taking those at the top of a wait list. The state can devise practices for publicizing the existence of charter schools that ensure broad dissemination of information and for helping parents make wise decisions. Public policy makers need to be particularly aware that unless such outreach efforts are made, charter schools could replicate the same race and class concentration evident in many segments of the traditional public school system. Student Skimming The findings of this first-year study do not yield information on whether or not charter schools are skimming off the more talented students from public schools. To have evidence of skimming, it would be necessary to know whether students who enroll in charter schools have higher educational ability and motivation than students in the schools from which they come. As noted early in the report, student assessment is not addressed in this report. This issue awaits further research. Start-Up Funding The absence of start-up funding stands out as the most significant problem facing charter school entrepreneurs. This problem was not unexpected since the same problem was reported in other states prior to the charter school legislation in Texas. Consequently, fundraising becomes a significant preoccupation of charter school directors and even occupies parents who, according to directors, spend a considerable amount of time in this endeavor. In addition to lack of start-up funding, our interviews with charter school officials indicate a need for information and assistance on such matters as how to construct a budget, employ staff members, develop a curriculum, and construct a class schedule. These are daunting tasks to undertake with limited fiscal resources. The current process seems tilted toward established interests with the resources to weather early storms. A benefit of this circumstance is that the conversion schools are less likely to self-destruct in the first several years, leaving parents and students stranded. A cost is the degree to which the lack of start-up funds makes it difficult for individuals with innovative educational approaches to form charter schools. With regard to facilities, state policy makers may want to consider revenue bonds as a source for charter school facilities funding. Upon default, the state would own the facilities for which it has provided funding. With outright grants, political pressures may determine who gets money, and the state would not own the facilities. Another financial issue is the overpayment of $2.5 million to 15 of the 19 charter schools, including the Cypress Lodge Charter School, which has not yet opened its doors. Some have suggested that these are new schools and overestimates are to be expected, but it should be noted that several were conversion schools with prior experience. Consequently, many charter schools begin the second year with a negative balance with the state. It should be noted that traditional public school districts sometimes overestimate attendance, but they usually have additional revenues to compensate and tax authority to raise more funds. Charter schools need more guidance in the area of fiscal controls and procedures. At the same time, the fiscal practices employed by the ˿Ƶ may have to be modified to accommodate the special circumstances of charter schools. Governance The governing structure and practices of the 17 Texas charter schools vary widely and are best characterized as informal. There is no systematic mechanism for the selection of board members. In several cases, board members are selected on the basis of friendship. Parental and teacher representation on governing boards is minimal. While avoidance of topheavy administrative structure and bureaucracy is welcomed, overly informal governance patterns carry their own dangers. The lack of public involvement in the selection of board members may dilute external accountability. Consideration should be given to requiring charter schools to have a formal governance structure, including a board of directors. An annual external financial audit should also be required. Appendix A: Texas Education Code 12.101-12.118 Statutory Provisions Governing Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Appendix B: Charter School Profiles At-Risk and Non-At-Risk Charter Schools List Profiles of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Operation during the 1996-97 School Year Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments Survey Instruments Charter School Parent Interview Guide (English and Spanish Versions) Control Group Parent Interview Guide (English and Spanish Versions) Charter School Student Questionnaire Comparison School Student Questionnaire Charter School Director Questionnaire Officials in Impacted Districts Questionnaire Appendices available in hard copy upon request 800-580-8237 RPP International and the University of Minnesota. (May, 1997). A study of charter schools: First-year report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. TEA Snapshot 95, p. 116. Contrary to the perceptions of some, federal disability laws apply to charter schools and, in the case of open-enrollment charter schools, may well impose greater regulatory burdens than would be the case for campus charters operating under the auspices of a public school district. For a detailed discussion, see Jay Heubert, Schools without rules? Charter schools, federal disability law, and the paradoxes of deregulation, Harvard Civil RightsCivil Liberties Law Review 32, 2, Summer 1997. Districts that were the exception were high-wealth school districts that must meet the requirements of Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code. These high-wealth districts include the student in their determination of weighted average daily attendance. They send the tuition payment to the charter school. The mechanism to fund charter school students is similar to contracting for the education of nonresident students (Texas Education Code 41.121.) Cypress Lodge does not appear in the PEIMS budget data files, but the state provided over $240,000 to the school during the 1996-97 fiscal year. According to information presented to the State Board of Education in September 1997, officials representing Cypress Lodge Charter School spent more than $840,000 in an effort to get the school ready to enroll students. Funds were spent to obtain timber and mineral rights for property, assistance in drawing up policies, and assistance in developing programs for the at-risk youth the school expects to serve. RPP International and the University of Minnesota. (May 1997). A study of charter schools: First-year report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (December 1996). Minnesota charter schools evaluation, Interim report. Similarly, as noted in Section VI, officials from traditional public schools located near non-at-risk charter schools were more likely to report a limited negative impact than those from districts near at-risk charter schools. If located near a charter school serving regular or high-ability students, officials were more likely to indicate that the presence of the charter school was problematic in terms of losing students or creating divisions in the community. See Section II for additional information on the educational background, race, and ethnicity of charter school teachers. Copies of the questionnaires used in surveys of charter school and comparison group parents are included in Appendix C. Spanish-speaking interviewers were available in both surveys. Given the disparities in income levels between the non-at-risk charter school parents and the responding comparison parent group, income is used to compute weights which are then multiplied by the numbers of comparison group parents in each income category. This weighting procedure makes the two groups exactly comparable with respect to income. It also makes them more comparable with respect to other socioeconomic and demographic variables such as ethnicity. Income is chosen for computing weights rather than ethnicity since weighting to achieve comparable distributions across the groups for ethnicity would require a weighting factor in excess of 8 for Hispanic respondents. The weights applied to each income category of the comparison group non-at-risk parents appear in the following table. Weighting FactorPercentage of Charter ParentsPercentage of Comparison ParentsLess than $5,0000.5191.42.7$5,000 - $9,9990.4632.55.4$10,000 - $14,9990.3633.69.9$15,000 - $19,9990.4225.713.5$20,000 - $24,9990.8567.79.0$25,000 - $34,9992.04916.68.1$35,000 - $49,9992.65319.17.2$50,000 - $74,9991.59524.415.3Over $75,0001.91919.09.9 The largest weighting factor applied to any income category is 2.653, with the smallest being 0.363 (a little over one-third). In other words, using income to calculate weights results in no ratios of comparison group to charter school respondents or charter school to comparison group respondents with an absolute value equal to or greater than 3. The responses for the non-at-risk comparison parent group from this point on reflect the weights in this table. Because Texas districts continue to experience general overall growth, no reduction in numbers of teachers or students was anticipated. During the 1996-97 school year open-enrollment charter school funding came directly from the state level and not through the local districts. Therefore, no district was required to make a payment directly to a charter school. Although no money was actually paid to a charter school by any district, these officials indicated that their districts lost money.     1996-97 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 87 <u v ']'p'--J44kEEP QY Z]]x'y}}\]CD$fg/0OPjkĆņ%&]^|}h$jh$CJH*U h$6CJ h$CJ h$5CJ h$5CJ h$5CJ$Q';<Nf    & O i j k { $a$   $ 2 O e f g u v w . /  0p! 0! $a$/ K g   6 \ k x    0! ` 0! ` 0!  0p!  0! ` 0p! ` . 9 R ^ k &Q_p8 0! ^ 0!  0! ` 0! `8o0U$>]u>? 0! ` 0!  0! `?KL %&W{  0! ^ 0!  0! ` H| V!Y)`+n 0!  0! ^ 0! 0^`0n IJUVgCc= 0! ` 0! ^ 0!  0! ^ 0! 0^`0=U+Ap R1sN 0! 0^`0 0! ^ 0! ` V '!]!!!,"m""""9#:#D#E#j# 0! 0^`0 0!  0! ` 0! ` 0! ^j####"$Z$$$$+%Y%%%%(&]&y&z&&& 0!  0! ` 0! ^ 0! 0^`0 0! `&&&&&'''A'^'_'q'r'(),,-----b/c/}0 0^`0$a$ 0!  0! `}0~022K4L4M44455v7w788::;<<>>9?:?@@AAXB 0^`0XBYBCChEiEjEEEUIVI9K:K M MNNPPP QQRRUUWW[X 0^`0[X\XYYY Z!Z]]]]``ccd'd9dWddddd&f'fafcff `^`` 0^`0fffOgggg$hWhXhhhllmmoohoiodpgphqjqsstt 0^`0 `^``teufuNvOvwwjwkwww3x4xx(y)y*yyyzz_{:|p||}} 0^`0 0^`0 `^``} }!}~~^jÀ؀ $$Ifa$$If3JYl~yssssssssjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` ÁƁɁ́́ЁӁցف܁߁ $$Ifa$ (-.267nhhh$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` $$Ifa$ 7;>?ق$$$`,$<44 `a` $$Ifa$ Ԃnhh$IfkdE$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` $$Ifa$ Ԃ  $$Ifa$$If !Fdejnosvw{wqqqhhhhhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` {}~nhh$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` $$Ifa$ ؃ك݃ރnhh$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` $$Ifa$ nh$IfkdQ$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` $$Ifa$u%&-Bwuuuuuuuuof $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh@,$jn<44 `a` BGPfg}$Ifrkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a` $$Ifa${{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd=$$If`\h$VF44 `a` {{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`$(+/{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\h$VF44 `a`/0DHKO{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd\ $$If`\h$VF44 `a`OP_cej{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\h$VF44 `a`jk{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\h$VF44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd{ $$If`\h$VF44 `a`Ć{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd0 $$If`\h$VF44 `a`Ćņކ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\h$VF44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`!%{{{ $$Ifa$$IftkdO$$If`\h$VF44 `a`%&TWY]{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`]^ruw|{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`|}{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdn$$If`\h$VF44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd#$$If`\h$VF44 `a`ćŇƇ`/UVyz͋΋"#<=LMbcߌ '(S˖̖56Z[uvǗȗؗٗ01[\ØĘќ-Ý h$5CJh$ h$CJ^ć{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a`ćŇabc018CUyy $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\h$VF44 `a` UVvwyz.akd$$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdB$$If`Fht!    44 `a`zʋˋ͋akdp$$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If͋΋ $$Ifa$$Ifakd $$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`  $$Ifa$$Ifakd;$$If`Fht!    44 `a`!" $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`"#9;< $$Ifa$$Ifakdm$$If`Fht!    44 `a`<=IKL $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`LM_`b $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`bc|} $$Ifa$$Ifakd8$$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakdj$$If`Fht!    44 `a`܌ތߌ $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`ߌ $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd5$$If`Fht!    44 `a`  $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a`"%' $$Ifa$$Ifakdg$$If`Fht!    44 `a`'()*]^*TUllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fht!    44 `a` U\hɖʖ˖}rkd$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If ˖̖{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd< $$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`'345{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`56LXYZ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd!$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`Z[gstu{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd1"$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`uv{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd"$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd#$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`ŗƗǗ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd&$$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`Ǘȗԗ՗֗ؗ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`ؗٗ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdt%$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd&$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`"#/0{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd&$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`01MNZ[{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdi'$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`[\{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd($$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd($$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`Ø{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd^)$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`ØĘӘԘ՘{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd*$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd*$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a`˛̛ϜМќYYYYYYYYY1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOtkdS+$$If`\hP$TT 44 `a` ќܜ./9Rm $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO}}} $$Ifa$$Ifrkd+$$If`\hH8$xxx44 `a`Ý{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd,$$If`\hH8$xxx44 `a`Ýĝʝ͝ҝם{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd(-$$If`\hH8$xxx44 `a`Ýĝם؝%t.}ޣߣDEmnդ֤?@lm!"BCde~pqrXY?@noWqlm-{|jh$CJH*U h$5CJ h$6 h$CJh$Xם؝ޝ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd-$$If`\hH8$xxx44 `a`tuv,-.9YYYYYYYYY1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOtkdZ.$$If`\hH8$xxx44 `a` 9}~ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILỌѣգڣޣysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$If`rhH" $44 `a`ޣߣ wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$If`rhH" $44 `a`38<@Dwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdu0$$If`rhH" $44 `a`DE[`eimwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd81$$If`rhH" $44 `a`mnzwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$If`rhH" $44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$If`rhH" $44 `a`¤ƤˤФդwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$If`rhH" $44 `a`դ֤wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdD4$$If`rhH" $44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd5$$If`rhH" $44 `a`.37;?wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd5$$If`rhH" $44 `a`?@Y^bglwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd6$$If`rhH" $44 `a`lmw|wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdP7$$If`rhH" $44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd8$$If`rhH" $44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd8$$If`rhH" $44 `a`!wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd9$$If`rhH" $44 `a`!"/49>Bwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd\:$$If`rhH" $44 `a`BCRX\`dwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd;$$If`rhH" $44 `a`dekpuz~wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd;$$If`rhH" $44 `a`~wFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>Բݶ(IL<$$If`rhH" $44 `a`Z[\gʭ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO .akd >$$If`FhHt!p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdh=$$If`FhHt!p    44 `a`6;?@dinakd>$$If`FhHt!p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifno $$Ifa$$IfakdY?$$If`FhHt!p    44 `a`WXYrslllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd@$$If`FhHt!p    44 `a` ´@A |~1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO.=Pd{|h_ $$Ifa$_kd@$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO $IfakdJA$$If`5Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$IfakdA$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`@A}~HI#^`.F+\9:RS/0DEpq3*+jk#$BCfgjh$CJH*U h$6CJ h$5CJ h$5CJh$ h$CJT3<@ $$Ifa$$IfakdB$$If`GFh .$$     44 `a`@Apy} $$Ifa$$Ifakd?C$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`}~ $$Ifa$$IfakdC$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdD$$If`#Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd4E$$If`PFh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdE$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`8CH $$Ifa$$IfakdF$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`HIoz $$Ifa$$Ifakd)G$$If`#Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdG$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdwH$$If`>Fh .$$     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdI$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`  $$Ifa$$IfakdI$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a`"# $$Ifa$$IfakdlJ$$If`#Fh .$$     44 `a`#$^_`56lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdK$$If`Fh .$$     44 `a` _`a,-.GH9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOx^x`1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOHoq)*+7]^en $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO.akd]L$$If`Fh.$    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdK$$If`Fh.$    44 `a` 159akdM$$If`Fh.$    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If9:JNR $$Ifa$$IfakdM$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`RS $$Ifa$$IfakdRN$$If`Fh.$    44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdN$$If`Fh.$    44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdO$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`'+/ $$Ifa$$IfakdGP$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`/0<@D $$Ifa$$IfakdP$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`DEhlp $$Ifa$$IfakdQ$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`pq $$Ifa$$IfakdAXD(GILOakd1T$$If`Fh.$    44 `a`3\]lmy $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO]^#$If_kdT$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` $$Ifa$#$:>B $$Ifa$$Ifakd{U$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`BC^bf $$Ifa$$Ifakd"V$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`fg} $$Ifa$$IfakdV$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdpW$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdX$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` AB]^}~>lm2\]9:ST~45]^!)KLSTjk # ]      h$6CJ h$5CJh$ h$CJ\ $$Ifa$$IfakdX$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdeY$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` 9=A $$Ifa$$Ifakd Z$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`ABUY] $$Ifa$$IfakdZ$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`]^uy} $$Ifa$$IfakdZ[$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`}~ $$Ifa$$Ifakd\$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd\$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a`=>?lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdO]$$If`Fhr$ p    44 `a` ?L__kd]$$If`FhlH#:    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO $Ifakd^$$If`FhlH#:    44 `a` $$Ifa$ 1?JKOSW[\`dhl $$Ifa$$Ifakd@_$$If`FhlH#:    44 `a`lms $$Ifa$$Ifakd_$$If`FhlH#:    44 `a` 345lllllllllf$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd`$$If`FhlH#:    44 `a` 5AJPV\]}]WN $$Ifa$$Ifkd5a$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a` $$Ifa$[U$Ifkda$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a` $$Ifa$ [U$Ifkdb$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a` $$Ifa$ d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdzc$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a` d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd=d$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`-02469d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`9:IKMOQSd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`STjnrvz~d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdf$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`~d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$IfkdIg$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd h$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdh$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdi$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$IfkdUj$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`*,.024d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`45IMQUY]d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`]^z|~d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdl$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdam$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a`d33331 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$n$$If`ֈhx  H#44 `a` !*+.;K $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOKLOQST.akd|o$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdn$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`Tfhjk}akdp$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If $$Ifa$$Ifakdp$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdGq$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`^_    $ % [ lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdq$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` [ \ ] i          $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO      .akds$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdyr$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a`  ! " 9 : ] ^ l m z {  @T;<~   /%&=>de:;^_yz'0q!!!$$%%%%%%"&#&V&W&&&&&&&>'jh$CJH*U h$6CJ h$5CJ h$CJh$W   ! " 5 7 9 akds$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If9 : Y [ ]  $$Ifa$$Ifakdjt$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a`] ^ h j l  $$Ifa$$Ifakdu$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a`l m v x z  $$Ifa$$Ifakdu$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a`z {     $$Ifa$$Ifakd_v$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a`  ABRTUalllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdw$$If`FhlH#p    44 `a` ";<J__kdw$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO JXlmquvz~akdBx$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If$Ifakdx$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$    lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdty$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` /09Nq $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO .akdz$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kd z$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`!#%akdW{$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If%&9;= $$Ifa$$Ifakd{$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`=>`bd $$Ifa$$Ifakd|$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`de} $$Ifa$$IfakdL}$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd}$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd~$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfakdA$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`68: $$Ifa$$Ifakd6$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`:;Z\^ $$Ifa$$Ifakd݁$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`^_uwy $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`yz $$Ifa$$Ifakd+$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a`()12/00 1 p!q!!lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd҃$$If`Fh H#` . R     44 `a` !!!!#"$"&#'#$$$$$%%%A%T%{%% $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO%%%%%%.akd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdy$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`%%%%%& &"&akdÅ$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If"&#&R&T&V& $$Ifa$$Ifakdj$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`V&W&&&& $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`&&&&& $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`&&&&& $$Ifa$$Ifakd_$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`&&:'<'>' $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`>'?'e'g'i' $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`>'?'i'j''''P(())')():);)a)b)~))))))))))$0|011 1+1,1N1O1a1b111111111 222 2022334&555555555556 6666[????@@@@-@.@>@?@L@M@[@\@^@e@gF h$6CJ h$5CJ h$CJh$Yi'j'''' $$Ifa$$IfakdT$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`''''' $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a`''Q(R(S(a((((((llllllf]] $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`FhVH#p    44 `a` ((())))#)')$If_kdI$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$')()2)6):) $$Ifa$$Ifakdތ$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`:);)Y)])a) $$Ifa$$Ifakdw$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`a)b)v)z)~) $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`~))))) $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`))))) $$Ifa$$IfakdB$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`))))) $$Ifa$$Ifakdۏ$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a`))))))++,,#010}0lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakdt$$If`Fh H#` @ @     44 `a` }0~000011 $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO11 111#1+1ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`+1,1B1E1H1K1N1wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdڑ$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`N1O1U1X1[1^1a1wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkds$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`a1b111111wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`1111111wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`1111111wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd>$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`1111111wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdה$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`1122 2 2 2wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a` 2222222wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`2 2&2*2+2/202wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`021222233wFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd;$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`3334444'5(5>5`5p555 $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO]^ 555555.akdw$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kdԗ$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a`55555555akd$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If55555 $$Ifa$$Ifakdř$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a`55666 $$Ifa$$Ifakdl$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a`6 6666 $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a`6666666777;8;==lllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fh H#N R @     44 `a` =Y?Z?[?h???????? $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO ????????@ysjjjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkda$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`@@@@@@@ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`@@!@%@(@*@-@wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdÝ$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`-@.@5@7@9@;@>@wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd\$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`>@?@D@F@H@J@L@wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`L@M@S@W@X@Z@[@wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`[@\@]@^@f@g@CC"EwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd'$$If`rh hH#` 44 `a`"E#EfFFFFFF}H~HLLQ!S"S9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOx^x`1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOgFFFFFLLVVVVVV.W/WVWWWWWW[ubbb)d+defgfhffffffffffff!gkglggggggggggh,h"ioiiiiiiiii j!jAjBjbjcjjjjjjjjjkkl h$6CJh$jh$CJH*U h$CJ h$5CJ h$CJ h$5CJQ"SUU+V,V3VHV`V{VVV`WWWWWW $$Ifa$5 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO^1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOX^`X VVVVVVwww $$Ifa$$Ifxkd$$IfT`\V fN T44 `aTVVVVVVwww $$Ifa$$Ifxkdt$$IfT`\V fN T44 `aTVVW#W)W.Wwww $$Ifa$$Ifxkd($$IfT`\V fN T44 `aT.W/WCWKWQWVWwww $$Ifa$$Ifxkdܢ$$IfT`\V fN T44 `aTVWWWsW{WWWwww $$Ifa$$Ifxkd$$IfT`\V fN T44 `aTWW[[M1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO0^`0xkdD$$IfT`\V fN T44 `aT[y\^^>`?```\9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO(^`(1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO0^`0` a aAaBa~aaaasbtbub``1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO5 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO^9 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO(^`( ubbbbbb)d+deeeeff(f8fCf\fgf $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOgfhfyf~fff.akd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`ffffffffakdB$$If`FhN  p    44 `a` $$Ifa$$Iffffff $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`fffff $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`ffffff!g"g,gAXD(GILOakd7$$If`FhN  p    44 `a` Gg`gkglg}ggg$If_kdި$$If`FhN  p    44 `a` $$Ifa$ggggg $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`ggggg $$Ifa$$Ifakd($$If`FhN  p    44 `a`ggggg $$Ifa$$IfakdϪ$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`ggggg $$Ifa$$Ifakdv$$If`FhN  p    44 `a`gghhh-h.h!i"i#i.iIipilllllllllll1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`FhN  p    44 `a` piqixiyiiiii $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOiiiiiiiysjjjj $$Ifa$$IfkdĬ$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`iiiiiiiwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`iiiiiiiwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`iijjjj jwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdî$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` j!j3j6j:jAXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`lglllllllllmm4m5mTmUmumvmmmmmmmmmnnnrr-s.sMsNsrssssssssss!t`tattttttttttttu9wwwwww x x-x.xIxJxgxhxxxxxxxx yCyDycydyyy h$6CJjh$CJH*Uh$ h$CJ h$5CJV=lhlilplqlllll $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOlllllllysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`lllllllwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`lllllllwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`llmm mmmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`mm&m)m-m0m4mwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`4m5mGmJmNmPmTmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdU$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`TmUmgmjmomqmumwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`umvmmmmmmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`mmmmmmmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`mmmmmmmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`mmmmmmmwqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`mmmmnnnnnwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`nppqqrrrrrrrrsss,s-s $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO-s.s/s6s>sEsMsysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`MsNsbsesjsmsrswqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdQ$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`rsssssssswqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ssssssswqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ssssssswqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ssssss"t#twFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`#t+t;tKtLt_t`tatbtitqtxttjkdN$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If tttttttwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`tttttttwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`tttttttwqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdM$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`tttttttwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ttttuuvv7wwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`7w8w9wDwVwwwwwwww $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO wwwwwwwysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wwwwxx xwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` x xx"x&x(x-xwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd~$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`-x.x9xAXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` yy.y/yByCyDyEyLyTy[ycyjkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If cydywy{yyyywqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdz$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`yyyyyyywqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`yyyyyyyyyzz'z(z)z8z{{||1|2|R|S|i|j|y|z|{||}}.}/}O}P}f}g}v}w}x}}S{|*+,r!"89HIJrM./XY{|̄̈́܄݄ h$5CJ h$6CJh$ h$CJ\yyyyyyywqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`yyyyyyywqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdE$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`yyyyyyywqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`yy z zzzzwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdw$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`zzz"z#z'z(zwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`(z)z*z9z:zz{{{wFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`{{{{{{{{ |||__kdB$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO |'|,|1|2|H|M|R|akd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$$IfR|S|a|e|i| $$Ifa$$Ifakdp$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`i|j|r|v|z| $$Ifa$$Ifakd $$If`Fh n V       44 `a`z|{|||}||||||||llllllf]] $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` |}}}$})}.}$If_kd;$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$.}/}E}J}O} $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`O}P}^}b}f} $$Ifa$$Ifakdi$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`f}g}o}s}w} $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`w}x}y}z}}}TUVlllllllllf$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` Vfgz{|}pj$Ifkd4$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$ wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`"&'*+wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`+,-.:stuwFFFFF@$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkde$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`upj$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$ ۀހwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`!wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`!".0468wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`89?CDHIwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`IJKLstKwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd/$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`KLMZ̓΃ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`!$(*.wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$If`rh #v 44 `a`./KNRTXwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`XYknsv{wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$If`rh #v 44 `a`{|wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`ƄȄ̄wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$If`rh #v 44 `a`̄̈́ӄׄ؄ۄ܄wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`܄݄ބ߄$wFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd]$$If`rh #v 44 `a`݄UԆՆ !DEWXrsJ~$HIjkșə  RSޚߚlۜܜ78klڝ۝!"efmnե֥()* h$6CJh$ h$5CJ h$CJ\$VWdtu $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`ȆʆΆІԆwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd\$$If`rh #v 44 `a`ԆՆwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a` !37<?Dwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$If`rh #v 44 `a`DEKMQSWwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`WXdgknrwqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdY$$If`rh #v 44 `a`rsy}~wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`ˈ̈wFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh #v 44 `a`HIJ}~"#$0Vʘ٘ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>Բݶ(IL167<@D[U$Ifkd$$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a` $$Ifa$ DHITY^bfj[U$Ifkd$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a` $$Ifa$jkd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdr$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`ęșd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`șə d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`  ;@EINRd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdg$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`RS~d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`ǚ̚њ՚ښޚd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a`ޚߚd33331 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd\$$If`ֈh : $ FFFF44 `a` lmÜќۜ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO ۜܜ  d^UUUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`!&+/37d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`78SX]bgkd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkdm$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`kld^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd"$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`Ýȝ͝ѝ֝ڝd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`ڝ۝ !d^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`!"MRW\aed^UUUUU $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`efd^UUUUU $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`d33331 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`ֈh \ $@ (FFFP44 `a`HXYlm $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOmnov~ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ťȥͥХեwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ե֥ݥwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`  wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`#$'(wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`()*+7`wFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd\$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ͦΦjkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If 23KL`auvAëڬ۬CDlm.^_XYƯǯ&' ]^}~Ŵƴٴڴ{̵͵56IJ]^stۺJ h$5CJh$ h$CJ^  wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`"%*-2wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd[$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`23:>CFKwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`KLSVZ\`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a``ahkoquwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`uvwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdX$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`?@AMīūwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ūƫ֫׫ث $$Ifa$$If+,-78ISMDDDDD $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a`IJXYZdevw $$Ifa$ ƬˬЬլQKBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a`լڬ۬HB$IfkdR$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a` $$Ifa$%*/4HB$Ifkd$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a` $$Ifa$49>CDNSXHB$Ifkd$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a` $$Ifa$X]bglmHB$Ifkdq$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a` $$Ifa$Hkd&$$If`֞h Pt!&2 44 `a` $$Ifa$/01ABC\]^ $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO ^_SMDDDDD $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a`ʮˮ̮֮׮ $$Ifa$ ./0567QKBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a`7<=>CDEJKLQRSX $$Ifa$ XYejoty~QKBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a`~HB$Ifkd$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a` $$Ifa$¯Ư $$Ifa$Ưǯѯ֯ۯQKBBBBB $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a` HB$Ifkd6$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a` $$Ifa$"&'Hkd$$If`֞h ^" $2 bbbbbb44 `a` $$Ifa$'()߳ 8HI\] $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO]^_fnu}ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkdh $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`}~wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd5 $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`Ŵwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdg $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ŴƴʹϴӴմٴwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ٴڴwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd2 $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`"J|}wFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkdd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`}˵̵͵εյݵjkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`%(-05wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`56=?CEIwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`IJQSWY]wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`]^gimoswqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`stz~wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`opٺںۺwFFFFFFF1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOkd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`ۺͿKL $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO.akd'$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$$If_kd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`Nkl<==FG~z}~r34=~9() 45ij h$5CJ h$5CJ h$CJh$\]]]]]]1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$$If OP__kdY$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILO  $$Ifa$$Ifakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a`lllllllllf$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOakd$$If`Fh n V       44 `a` 'Ikl}$Ifrkd $$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a` $$Ifa$ {{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdj$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`-27<{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`<=>?=>GYYYYYYYS$If1 \xH  X("h%8(+-0x3H69;>AXD(GILOtkd_$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a` G^i}$Ifrkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a` $$Ifa$ {{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$IftkdP$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`7<AF{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`FGoty~{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a`~yzYYYYYYYYY1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF ItkdE$$If`\hN |4$ .44 `a` Lrkd$$If`\h4$jbbb44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I3DVW[_bcfjmnsx} $$Ifa$$If}~ $89<@CG{{{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd $$If`\h4$jbbb44 `a`GKORSVY\`cfijoty~ $$Ifa${{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd!$$If`\h4$jbbb44 `a`pqr|YYYYYYYYY1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Itkd!$$If`\h4$jbbb44 `a` |349OZh__kdL"$$If`Fhx$@ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I hsty~akd"$$If`Fhx$@ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$$If$Ifakdz#$$If`Fhx$@ @     44 `a` $$Ifa$ >?Gdkllllllf]] $$Ifa$$If1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Iakd$$$If`Fhx$@ @     44 `a` k~}}}}$Ifrkd$$$If`\h!x44 `a` $$Ifa$&=Xi{{{{{{{{$IftkdA%$$If`\h!x44 `a` $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$:;STYYYYYYYYY1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Itkd%$$If`\h!x44 `a` '( $$Ifa$$If1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I ()0;V`kysjjjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkds&$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd\'$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$If`rh B\$V 44 `a` "&+/4wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd{)$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`45W[`diwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd0*$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`ijwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdO,$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`M"@Aij  34UVab  12QRxy'QRubc*sh2r h$6CJ h$CJ h$5CJh$ h$CJYMNOwFFFFFFF1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Ikd-$$If`rh B\$V 44 `a`#$%A[v $$Ifa$$If1 \0p@ P !"$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I ysjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$If`rh $ 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdN.$$If`rh $ 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$If`rh $ 44 `a`-27<@wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$If`rh $ 44 `a`@AV[`eiwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$If`rh $ 44 `a`ijw|wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$If`rh $ 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdK1$$If`rh $ 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$If`rh $ 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd}2$$If`rh $ 44 `a`  $).3wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$If`rh $ 44 `a`34BGLQUwqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$If`rh $ 44 `a`UVWXwGGGGGGG/ YsC}R " b2 #r&B),.14R7"::$$If`rh $ 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$If`rh $ 44 `a`wGGGGGGG/ YsC}R " b2 #r&B),.14R7":$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd6?$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd?$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdh@$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`!%*wqhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`*+stughwGGGGGGG/ YsC}R " b2 #r&B),.14R7": V W n  ~$$m%n%%%%%%%&& h$5CJ h$CJh$^!%*.QKBBBBB $$Ifa$$IfkdC$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a`.23?GLPTHB$IfkdD$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$TY]^_josHB$IfkdeE$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$sw|HB$IfkdDF$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$HB$Ifkd#G$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$HB$IfkdH$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$HkdH$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$  $$Ifa$$If +05:?QKBBBBB $$Ifa$$IfkdI$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a`?CDW_dimHB$IfkdJ$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$mquvwHB$Ifkd~K$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$HB$Ifkd]L$$If`֞h  $$ 8\44 `a` $$Ifa$HB$Ifkd E J N R V wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd^$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`V W ^ b f j n wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`n o    |$}$~$$wFFFFFFF1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.kd0`$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`$$$$$%%%l%m% $$Ifa$$If1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),. m%n%o%w%~%%%%%%ysjjjjjjj $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a` %%%%%%%wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkda$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`%%%%%%%wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd/b$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`%%%%%&&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdb$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&&&&&"&'&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdac$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&'&(&B&C&_&`&&&&&&&&&'f'p'/i/22S:s:k<l<<<==U@o@@LFaFmHHLL?NNNNNNNN OO&O'O}O~OOOOOOPWWWZZ_P_Q_____6`7```aarasaaaVbWbb h$CJ h$6CJjh$CJH*U h$5CJ h$5CJh$ h$CJR'&(&>&?&@&A&B&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`B&C&L&Q&U&Z&_&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`_&`&v&z&~&&&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd,e$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&&&&&&&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&&&&&&&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkd^f$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&&&&&&&wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdf$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`&& '''''wqhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdg$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`''f'g'h'q'r'!)")wFFFFFFF1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.kd)h$$If`rh H\$V 44 `a`") ,,--/j/k/l/~002222?6@688R:t:u:m<n<<1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.<<> >T@U@p@q@@@AAKFLF`FaFlHmHHHJJLLL1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.LL>N?NJNNNNNNNNN{r $$Ifa$Lkdh$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`$If1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),. NNNNN O O[Nkdi$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`$IfNkdWi$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a` OO$O&O'OhO{O}O[Nkd"k$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`$IfNkdj$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`}O~OOOOOO[NkdTl$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`$IfNkdk$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`OOOOO[Nkdm$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`$IfNkdl$$If`0hPD$ 44 `a`Oc?cBcEcFcIcwqqqhhhhhhhh $$Ifa$$IfkdFs$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` IcLcMcPcScTcgcuccccccnhhhh$Ifkds$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` $$Ifa$ cccccccccccccc $$Ifa$ cccccccccccccwqqqqhhhhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdxt$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` cddd d d dddd d(d0dnhhh$Ifkdu$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` $$Ifa$ 0d1d3d7d8d:d>d?d@dDdEdGdKd $$Ifa$ KdLdYdadidjdmdpdqdtdwdxdydwqqqhhhhhhhh $$Ifa$$Ifkdu$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` yd|d}dddddddddddnhhh$IfkdCv$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` $$Ifa$ dddddddddddnkdv$$If`rh, |$pppp44 `a` $$Ifa$ deee%e&eTgUggghhll$n%nHnIn1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.In}p~pttxxzy{yyy||e~f~1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.5 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.^$%5 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.^1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.%gh'(YÖ"Keeeeeee4$ \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.a$1 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.5 \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.^ KLt̗5]4$ \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.a$̙p ݢW01j3 \0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I/ Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I1 Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I Xyzjklnoqrtuwɽ h$CJjh$0JU*hbJ0JmHnHu* h$0Jjh$0JUjhUhjh$H*Uh$12CRbp}rkduw$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a` $$Ifa$$If §{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd&x$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`§çէۧߧ{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdx$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdy$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`"&{{{ $$Ifa$$IftkdEz$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`&'9?DH{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdz$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`HI[afj{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd{$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`jk}{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkdd|$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`{{{ $$Ifa$$Iftkd}$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`yZ((1 Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I/ Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Itkd}$$If`\hpb$ 44 `a`jkmnpqstvw$a$1 Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I4$ \*j: zJY ) i9  #y&I),.a$/ 0BP/ =!"#$% ,BP/ =!"#$% 90PBP/ =!"#$% Dp3&PBP/ =!"#$%0 $$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vn#v#v#v<:V `5j5n555</ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV#v#vF#v:V `5V55F5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v:V `55/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vT#v :V `55T5 / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vx:V `55x/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vx:V `55x/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vx:V `55x/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vx:V `55x/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vx:V `55x/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `555$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `G55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `#55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `P55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `#55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `>55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `#55$ 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v$ #v:V `55$ 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v:V `555/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v:#v#v:V `5:55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v:#v#v:V `5:55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v:#v#v:V `5:55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v:#v#v:V `5:55/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v:#v#v:V `5:55/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v#v#v#v:V `55555/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v. #vR :V `5` 5. 5R / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp#v:V `55p5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v@ :V `5` 5@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vN #vR #v@ :V `5N 5R 5@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v` #v:V `5` 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/  /  / / / 4 `T$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/  /  / / / 4 `T$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/  /  / / / 4 `T$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/  /  / / / 4 `T$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/  /  / / / 4 `T$$Ifh!vh#vN #vT#v#v:V `5N 5T55/ / / / / 4 `T$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v#vp:V `5 55p/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vv #v:V `5v 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #vF#v:V `5 5F5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v@ #v(#vF#vP:V `5@ 5(5F5P/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/ / / / / / / / / /  / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #v#v#v:V `52 555/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/ / / / / / / / / /  / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vb:V `52 5b/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v :V `5V 5 / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v.#v:V `5 5.5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vb:V `5j5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vb:V `5j5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vb:V `5j5b/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vj#vb:V `5j5b/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vx#v:V `5x5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vx#v:V `5x5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vx#v:V `5x5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v#v#v:V `5V 555/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v #v:V `5 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v@ :V `55@ / / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #vf:V `5$ 5f/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v$ #v#v#v8#v#v#v\:V `5$ 5558555\/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vT#v:V `52 5T5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vT#v:V `52 5T5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vT#v:V `52 5T5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vT#v:V `52 5T5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v2 #vT#v:V `52 5T5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / / /  /  / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#vV #v:V `5V 5/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#v :V `55 / / / / / 4 `a`a$$If!vh#v$:V `45$/  / 4 `a`f4$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vp:V `55p/ / / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ /  /  / / / 4 `a`$$If!vh#v#vb#v#v$ :V `55b55$ / / / / / 4 `a`s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH H`H Normal5$7$8$9DH$_HmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List 44 Header !4 @4 Footer !.)@.  Page NumberPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] \xpXl*j Dfk445} d  wzw(1_  @@@@@@BBBEÝ >'gFly݄&bXWCk ;d /  8? n=j#&}0XB[Xft}7Ԃ{B/OjĆ%]|ćUz͋"<Lbߌ'U˖5ZuǗؗ0[ØќÝם9ޣDmդ?l!Bd~n@}H#H9R/Dp3#Bf A]}?l59S~4]KT[   9 ] l z  J%=d:^y!%%"&V&&&&>'i'''('):)a)~))))}01+1N1a11111 22023555566=?@@-@>@L@[@"E"SVVV.WVWW[`ubgfffffGggggggpiiiii jAjbjjjjjk=lllllm4mTmummmmmn-sMsrssss#tttttt7www x-xIxgxxxx ycyyyyyyz(z{|R|i|z||.}O}f}w}V+u!8IK.X{̄܄$Ԇ DWrDjș Rޚۜ7kڝ!emե(2K`uūIլ4X^7X~Ư']}Ŵٴ}5I]sۺ<GF~}G|hk(4i@i 3Ua 1QxQ*.Ts?m Cp  A , p   7h2Qz " = V n $m%%%%&'&B&_&&&&&'")<LN O}OOO__$`f```araaaVbbbcIcccc0dKdydddIn%K1§&HjXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~3:=E!L# @0(  B S  ?kkkD$QrAbJhs_AMO_XmlVersionEmpty@@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialACambria Math"1hcBcB b.^O b.^O!xx0BHP  $PQr2!xx .Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year OneTCERDwiggins, LaurenOh+'0 4@ ` l x0Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year OneTCER Normal.dotmDwiggins, Lauren2Microsoft Office Word@@1e@1e^ b.՜.+,0X hp  TCERO /Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year One Title/Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year One  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FweData ~1Tablez2WordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q