ࡱ> NPM Hbjbj<< *T^^@ $%%%%%BDDDDDD9"DD%%Y %% 6BRZB%VRo0""<" r\nNDD" : Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Second Year Evaluation, 199798 Executive Summary This evaluation centers on Texas first 19 open-enrollment charter schools. These schools were started in response to Texas Education Code 12.10112.118, enacted in 1995, which authorized the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) to grant charters to 20 schools. Schools receiving charters operate independently of local school districts and are freed from many state education regulations. Sixteen of the 20 schools receiving charters in May 1996 began operation in fall 1996, one started in January 1997, two started in fall 1997, and one had its charter revoked before it opened. Subsequent legislation has allowed the SBOE to grant charters to an additional 140 applicants. Because first year charter school applications were approved on a first-come, first-served basis from a small applicant pool, characteristics of the initial charter school cohort may differ significantly from those of later cohorts. This evaluation study was commissioned by the SBOE pursuant to TEC 12.118 and covers the second year of a multi-year study. It encompasses a variety of data sources including parent, student, and teacher surveys; surveys of charter school directors and local school district officials, document analysis, and on-site visits. Where appropriate, findings from the first year evaluation study are presented alongside findings from the second year study for comparison. An analysis of charter school student achievement results on the Texas Assessment of Academic skills (TAAS) will be available at a later date. The findings listed in this summary roughly parallel the information presented in turn in each major section of the complete report. Readers are urged to review relevant sections of the complete report for a full understanding of the findings and their significance. Copies of the complete report may be obtained from the Office of Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, by calling 512-463-9575. Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools In their first year of operation, charter schools were characterized by low student-teacher ratios, but in the second year, the average student-teacher ratio for charter schools16 to oneis about the same as the average for traditional public schools in Texas. Slightly over two-thirds of Texas charter schools are new or startup schools, compared to about 60 percent nationally. Eleven of the nineteen charter schools operating in the second year were classified as at-risk schools because of their declared intention to serve primarily at-risk students and because of the socioeconomic characteristics of student households as determined through parent surveys. In the aggregate, charter schools enroll higher percentages of Hispanic and African American students and lower percentages of Anglo students than traditional public schools in Texas. To some extent, these disparities can be explained by the fact that a majority of charter schools were created to serve at-risk students, a population that is drawn disproportionately from minority groups. Although African American students are fairly evenly distributed among at-risk and non-at-risk schools, Hispanic students are much more likely to be enrolled in at-risk schools, and Anglo students are much more likely to be enrolled in non-at-risk schools. Enrollments of special education students, limited-English-proficient students, and gifted and talented students are proportionally lower in charter schools than in traditional public schools in Texas. Charter schools employ a much higher percentage of non-certified teachersslightly over halfthan traditional public schools in the state, and a lower percentage of Anglo teachers. Charter school teachers are both more likely to be non-degreed and to have doctorates than traditional public school teachers, and are somewhat less likely to have bachelors and masters degrees. Section III: Perspectives of Charter School Directors Comparing their experiences from 1996-97 to 1997-98, charter school directors identified their greatest difficulty as securing adequate funding, but found attracting students to be much easier. Charter school directors say that their single most difficult problem during the second year of operation is lack of adequate operating funds. Limited financial resources make it difficult for schools to find and maintain suitable space to offer classes, hire faculty and staff, and acquire teaching materials. Other major challenges identified by charter school directors include inadequate facilities, lack of planning time, and repayment of state aid overpayment. Based on 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 of charter school directors say that parents are included on their boards. Two reported that teachers are included on their schools board. Charter schools rely primarily on state aid for revenue, and receive a small percentage from the federal government and private sources. Over three-quarters of charter schools receive some kind of support from community and business organizations. Nearly all charter school directors hold degrees beyond the bachelors. Five of nineteen directors hold doctorates. Although public school principals are required to hold mid-management certification, three-fourths 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. According to their directors, charter schools employ a variety of curricular approaches. While three-quarters say they use Texas curriculum materials, only two schools use them exclusively. In thirteen schools, teachers are reported to have developed their own curriculum. The most common educational practices reported are multi-age grouping, mainstreaming, use of technology to enhance student learning, performance-based assessment, and project-based learning. Both traditional public school and charter school students must pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test in order to graduate, and TAAS data are used in both cases to determine school performance. Some charter schools included additional performance measures in their charter applications. Those measures vary greatly among schools, reducing the value of comparisons. Over one-third of charter school directors say that their schools are having an effect on neighboring school districts. The effect typically reported is that the neighboring school district is establishing a program or school similar to the charter school. Based on reports from charter school directors, nearly half the teachers employed in 1996-97 did not return the following year. According to charter school directors, parent participation is part of the organizational format. Parents most frequently are involved in fundraising activities. More than three-quarters of charter school directors report having a wait list of students. Most plan to expand by adding classes and faculty positions. Fewer than half expect to add grade levels. Directors of non-at-risk schools said they expected 88 percent of eligible students to return the following year. The two most important reasons cited for students not returning were that the school did not meet academic expectations and that students had discipline problems. Directors of at-risk schools expected 56 percent of eligible students to return, and reported high numbers of students leaving. The number includes many students who had successfully completed their GED and graduated. Other reasons for leaving are unique to at-risk student populations. Charter schools do not have to follow the state discipline system. Thus student discipline information in this study comes from charter school directors themselves and is not directly comparable to information available for other public schools. In the aggregate, charter schools directors say they spend about 17 percent of their time on discipline. Two-thirds say that student discipline problems are not serious. Directors of the two new charter schools added in 1997-98 report experiences which are generally similar to the experiences of first-year charter schools in 1996-97, as well as to the experiences of these second-year charter schools in 1997-98. Section IV: Parent Demographics, Participation, and Satisfaction Levels On average, parents of students attending at-risk charter schools are of lower socioeconomic status (lower incomes and less education) than parents of students attending non-at-risk charter schools. Their aspirations for their children after high school graduation are lower than aspirations of non-at-risk parents. Non-at-risk parents are more likely to be employed full-time, and somewhat more likely to be married and living with their spouse. For both at-risk and non-at-risk parents, the most important factors in choosing to send their children to a charter school relate to academic qualitythe educational quality of the school and the promise of smaller class sizes. At-risk parents are more likely to cite concern for the childs safety as an important factor. Charter school parents express high satisfaction with the charter schools their children attendabout 85 percent of both at-risk and non-at-risk parents give these schools a grade of A or B. Fewer than half would give their childs previous school such grades. Parents whose children have attended charter schools for two years are somewhat more satisfied with the schools than those whose children have attended charter schools for one year. The difference is attributed to increased satisfaction of at-risk parents in the second year of their childs attendance at a charter school. A majority of charter school parents learned about the charter school by talking to friends and relatives. For non-at-risk parents, the second-most important information source is the mediaTV, radio, and newspapers. For at-risk parents, the second-most important source is the public schools. Section V: Student Satisfaction Students attending at-risk charter schools chose their school primarily because they believed the school would better fit their educational needs. More than two-thirds of at-risk school students say that the at-risk charter school offers them smaller classes, more personal attention from their teachers, overall better quality teachers, and teachers who care more about their students then the students had experienced in schools they have previously attended. At-risk charter school students remain satisfied with their charter school, although their enthusiasm is somewhat diminished from their first year. While in their first year of attending the school, 57 percent of the at-risk school students indicated that they were very satisfied with the charter school. By their second year, those saying they were very satisfied had decreased to 38 percent. Nonetheless, second year students are even more committed to returning to the school than they were after their first year. Moreover, students continued to give their charter school high grades: 32 percent gave their school an A and 42 percent gave it a B. At-risk charter school students continued to have high post-graduation educational aspirations. One-third of students say they plan to attend a four-year college, 20 percent to attend a two year college, and 7 percent to attend a technical school. Among those not planning to continue with their education after high school, 16 percent intend to get a job and 14 percent plan to join the military. The percent leaning toward the military increased by nearly three-fold from the previous year. Section VI: Perspectives of Charter School Teachers Among survey respondents overall, minority teachers are more likely to be found in at-risk than in non-at-risk schools. The percentage of Hispanic teachers is higher in at-risk schools; however, the percentage African American teachers is higher in non-at-risk schools. Slightly more than half of charter school teachers are certified. Teachers in non-at-risk schools are more likely to be certified or to be working toward certification than teachers in at-risk schools. More than twice as many teachers in at-risk than non-at-risk schools have prior work experience in social services. About half of respondents indicated that they hoped to be working in charter schools during the next school year. About a third said they would be teaching in a regular public school if not in a charter school. Nearly a quarter said they would be teaching in another charter school. About half of respondents overall consider their salary to be lower than the salary for the job they might hold if not working in a charter school. More than half of respondents from at-risk charter schools indicated that their salary is significantly lower than it would be at another job. The schools educational philosophy or mission and the opportunity to help shape a new kind of school were the main reasons teachers gave for deciding to work in charter schools. School and class size, opportunity to work with like-minded colleagues and high-quality administrators, less bureaucracy and more autonomy, and safety were also important reasons for a majority of respondents. Three times as many teachers in at-risk than non-at-risk schools named difficulty finding other suitable position as an important factor in their decision. More than half of respondents are very satisfied with their experiences in starting a new kind of school. Nearly half are very satisfied with the schools size and with their classroom autonomy. Respondents are least satisfied with their schools physical facilities and with the level of parent involvement. The main differences between charter schools and schools where respondents taught previously are increases in attention to student needs, teacher autonomy, and teamwork, and a decrease in support for teachers. In general, non-at-risk school teachers are more satisfied with their school than teachers from at-risk schools. A majority of respondents consider their school very successful in providing for the safety of students and staff members. Roughly half from non-at-risk schools consider their schools very successful in setting high academic standards for students, assessing student performance, building and training a high quality faculty where teachers are involved in decision making, and positively influencing education in the community. A majority of respondents from at-risk schools indicated that their school was not successful in involving parents or in providing teachers with needed supplies and materials. The greatest source of satisfaction for charter school teachers is to see their students succeed. Teachers in at-risk schools in particular noted relationships with students as a source of satisfaction, whereas teachers in non-at-risk schools were more likely to cite teacher empowerment and teamwork as sources of satisfaction. Teachers are most discontented with poor administration and lack of resources, viewing the latter as their schools most serious problem. Section VII: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts Officials in most public school districts near charter schools reported minimal effects in terms of funding, student or teacher attrition, parental involvement, and programmatic changes. Few districts have systematic methods to track the number of students leaving to attend charter schools. District officials perceptions of charter school effects seem most clearly related to the number and proximity of charter schools in the area. Section VIII: Performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) The majority of Texas open-ended charter schools included in this study exist to serve students at risk of dropping out before graduation. Charter school students performed at lower levels on TAAS than traditional public school students. Texas accountability ratings show that 40 percent of charter schools have an acceptable or higher rating, compared with 91 percent of Texas public schools in general. Three charter schools outperformed the state average, however, and one was rated recognized.  ()* * *006$7%7DDFFH hH6 hH6CJ hHCJhH'HI[\ ST()/0RSTU  & F $a$hi@A9: ""####*$+$$$&'''(( & F ()) * *++--..Y/Z/0000s2t25566%7&7 & F & Fh^h` & F & F  & F &75868u9v9::;;==V@W@BBDDDDEEFFFFHH & F & F & F(/ =!"#$% ^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 Normal_HmH sH tH <@<  Heading 1$@&5CJB@B  Heading 2$$@&a$5CJ<@<  Heading 3$@&6CJ8@8  Heading 4$@&6DA D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List 2B@2 Body TextCJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] @ TH%(&7H&'()8@0(  B S  ? v%v%Lv%v%?v%$_v%/v%Qv%Q v% v%P v%( ( L L | | ..@  - - Q Q 33@ 9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState M  @] ` y  00!?&?@333333  VE  r A 3 F& rV,j4D=9 q^ $t`d I&s |bS hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo(@hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`CJo(.hh^h`o(. rV,rV,P r3|bSVE F&q^A$t`dI&s=9 `l@hh^h`. H;@@_AMO_XmlVersiondEmpty@@@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialA BCambria Math"hBD&BD&,F #7!u #7!u24d@@3HX?H2!xx0Texas Charter Schools Year Two Executive SummaryTCERlworley<         Oh+'0 , L X d p|4Texas Charter Schools Year Two Executive SummaryTCER Normal.dotmlworley2Microsoft Office Word@@~-@|V@|V #7՜.+,0 hp  TCERu!@ 1Texas Charter Schools Year Two Executive Summary Title  !"#$%&'()*,-./0123456789:;<>?@ABCDFGHIJKLORoot Entry F`)&VQ1Table+#WordDocument*TSummaryInformation(=DocumentSummaryInformation8ECompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q